PETITION
	 — 
	Heavy Goods Vehicles (Totternhoe)

Andrew Selous: I wish to present a petition bearing the signatures of more than 400 residents of the village of Totternhoe, in Bedfordshire, to which I am pleased to add my support.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of residents of Totternhoe, Bedfordshire
	Sheweth that the narrow roads of Totternhoe were not made for heavy goods vehicles to pass through the village, and that the size, noise and speed of these vehicles are abhorrent to the petitioners. In addition, when the "Green Wave" starts in Dunstable the position will worsen and the number of lorries increase.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government and local authorities to impose a 7.5 tonne weight restriction order, except for access, in Stanbridge Road, Castle Hill Road and Dunstable Road, Totternhoe.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that under the heading "Business of the House", yesterday's Order Paper states:
	"at the sitting on Monday 22nd July, the Motion for the adjournment of the House . . . may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours".
	However, it was then pointed out that the Division on this question stands deferred to Wednesday 24 July.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that we attempted to deal with this matter yesterday evening, and I simply seek your guidance as to where the House now stands on this motion. It appears that the motion provides for three hours for the Adjournment debate on Monday, but that the Division that will decide the matter is not until Wednesday. The House would be grateful for your guidance as to what is likely to happen on Monday. The Leader of the House said that there will be a statement, and there are two other items of business that we know about: Second Reading of the Mobile Telephones (Re-Programming) Bill, and the motions to establish the Transport Committee and the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that Monday is already a fairly busy day, can you explain the likely shape of business, and in particular the status of the Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Monday's business will go ahead without account being taken of the proposal in the motion before the House yesterday, which was not decided on. By the time that the deferred Division on that motion is taken, it will be too late for it to have effect; however, the Chair has no power to cancel the deferred Division. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to take up, through the usual channels, how this odd situation may be dealt with.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for that guidance, although I doubt whether anybody else will be. However, it raises another matter relating to the Adjournment debate itself. Will it be within the gift of the Government to arrange business on Monday so that we can have an Adjournment debate of a proper length? I see the distinct danger that, if the business that we know about is in any way prolonged—and if the Government insist that we stop at 10 o'clock, for example—the Adjournment debate could be squeezed very severely. Can you confirm that it is now a matter for the Government as to whether proper time be allowed for the Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, is very accurate in these matters. It is a matter for the Government as to what shape Monday's business will take.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice because I am very concerned about what appears to be the incredible shrinking Order Paper before the House today. On Monday, 63 Bills were down for consideration today, on Tuesday there were 64, and on Wednesday we had an embarrassment of riches—67 Bills. Yesterday, 68 Bills were listed for consideration today, all of which have some merit and are certainly worthy of closer examination.
	Today, however, only 49 Bills are on the Order Paper, and I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, on what has happened to the others. I want to know why they are not before the House today and whether some dirty deal behind the bike sheds has been done to get rid of them, thereby robbing this House of the opportunity to scrutinise them in any way, shape or form. Can you advise me whether it is possible to find out if undue pressure has been brought to bear on any Member to withdraw his or her Bill? That information would be most helpful to other Members, and certainly to Opposition Members.

Mr. Speaker: I am always happy to advise the hon. Lady. Bills that are not printed are not included on the Order Paper. Of course, hon. Members of this House would not tolerate undue pressure from any quarter.

Bob Spink: On a very pleasant point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the day on which Trevor Dann, the Principal Doorkeeper, announced your arrival in this House for the last time before his retirement, will you advise us whether this would be an appropriate time for us, on behalf of the whole House, to thank him, and Peter Overfield, the Deputy Principal Doorkeeper, and Maureen Coxon, the first lady Doorkeeper, who guarded the Letter Board so admirably over many years, for their work and the help that they have given us, and to wish them a long and happy retirement?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to say that I have known those officers for a long time, and they have been conscientious, hard-working and most obliging to all Members of the House. I wish them all well in their retirement and thank them for their excellent service to the House.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 1088 of the Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, which reports the deliberations of the Reasons Committee in respect of the Lords amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill? I was a member of that Committee and I found myself in a difficult position, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how one should deal with the situation that developed.
	The Votes and Proceedings says:
	"The Commons disagree to Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 made by the Lords, for the following Reason:
	Because it is not appropriate to provide any such exceptions, the House having reached its decision without the opportunity for debate."
	I find myself in an awkward position, and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I was asked to be party to a vote on why this House disagreed with something, when not a single word had been uttered in the Chamber to explain why the vote turned out as it did. Is it appropriate for a Committee of the House to sit and speculate on what the Government really meant but refused to give us the opportunity to discuss? It was the statements that the Government arranged yesterday, and the lengthy delays that they caused, that prevented the House from knowing what the reason for disagreement was. I feel very uncomfortable at having put my name to a guess about what the House meant. Is there not a better way of doing things?

Mr. Speaker: The responsibility of the Reasons Committee is to give reasons as to why certain legislation has been dealt with in a certain way. It is not for me to interfere with the business of the Reasons Committee. It has put down a reason and that will be sent to the other place.

Stephen McCabe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it be in order for any Member of the House to seek your absolution because he regrets his own voting record?

Mr. Speaker: It may be more appropriate for the Speaker's Chaplain to do such things.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Damage by assistance dog

'Where an assistance dog being carried in a private hire vehicle causes damage, vomits, urinates or defecates therein then the disabled person accompanying the assistance dog shall be liable for the full cost of repairing and cleaning the private hire vehicle, the amount being recoverable as a civil debt.'.—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, after "medical", insert "or other reasonable".
	Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
	'and any relevant medical condition or allergy to dogs (supported by such medical evidence as the licensing authority may prescribe) of the driver'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 14, after "vehicle", insert "or named driver".
	Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
	'which period shall be not less than 12 months'.
	Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
	'or
	(c) at the time of the refusal the assistance dog was in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state which might have endangered the drivers ability to properly control the private hire vehicle.'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
	'(8A) No offence is committed by a driver under subsection (3) if—
	(a) the dog is so large as not to be able to sit comfortably on the floor of the vehicle, or
	(b) the disabled person refuses or fails to require or fails to cause the dog to sit on the floor of the vehicle'.

Sydney Chapman: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has suddenly had to go to an unexpected and rather serious engagement in his constituency. A matter has come up, and I will willingly explain privately to any hon. Member the reasons why my right hon. Friend cannot attend today. He sends his apologies for not being here. I understand that as the amendment stands in my name as well as his, I am permitted to move the new clause and to speak to amendment No. 2.
	Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me say first that I fully support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and wish it well; I hope that it reaches the statute book expeditiously. The purpose of the new clause and amendment No. 2 is to protect the security interests of the driver of a private hire vehicle.
	I have received a briefing from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in the names of its campaigns director and its campaigns officer, Mr. Nicholas Russell. I have been very much persuaded by what Mr. Russell has written, and it seems to me on balance that, provided that nothing to the contrary comes out of the ensuing debate and the Minister does not argue the other way, I should not seek to put either new clause 1 or amendment No. 2 to the vote, but should rather, with the leave of the House, withdraw the motion.
	Before doing that, I shall mention the reasons why I have come to that conclusion. New clause 1, as the House will know, deals with the possibility of a guide dog vomiting, urinating or defecating in a vehicle. The driver would be able to recover the costs in civil law if necessary. I am not a lawyer, but I am assured that if that happened the owner of the dog would in any case be liable for a civil debt under the general law of tort. If that is the case, it would be extraneous to proceed with the new clause.
	The new clause was not intended to suggest that such events would happen except in the most extreme and rare circumstances. I am deeply aware of how guide dogs are chosen and trained, and the care that goes into that, and I would not seek to suggest that it is the norm that a dog would do any of those things, or cause damage in the way described in the new clause.
	Amendment No. 2 deals with the possibility of a dog being
	"in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state",
	and the same applies to that. Dogs are selected and extensively trained to ensure that they are of a placid temperament and know how they are expected to behave in cars. If, exceptionally, a dog became excited or boisterous, it would be retrained, and the RNIB assures me that if the retraining was unsuccessful the dog would be retired.
	In the light of those assurances, and unless there is some legal point that might necessitate strengthening the defence for a driver in such exceptional circumstances, I shall not insist that the House divides on either new clause 1 or amendment No. 2.

Tom Clarke: Characteristically, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has made a very moderate speech—indeed, a good speech—in opposition to the new clause and amendment No. 2. However, there are some in the House today who may recall the passage of what was then the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Government of the day chose the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as the Minister who piloted the Bill through, and he did that extremely well. I led for the Opposition, and I leave others to decide what my performance was like. [Hon. Members: "Tremendous."] I am sure that it is all on the record. However, I very much regret, as do Members who were involved in that Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has done such a marvellous job in introducing this Bill, that we had to move the then Government on transport because it had not been included in the original draft Bill. So we made more progress on transport than was originally expected. However, we did not reach the issue in this Bill.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for giving the impression that he will not press new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 to a vote because all the evidence is that the behaviour of guide dogs for blind people and hearing dogs for people with hearing impairments is normally impeccable. They are properly trained and their owners look after them. Were the new clause and amendment to be passed, the opposite impression might be given, which would do a great disservice to a progressive step forward.

Lawrie Quinn: The whole House respects the work that my right hon. Friend and the supporters of the Bill have done. However, does he agree that it is often human beings, particularly those who have had too much to drink or are intoxicated in other ways, who cause the offence to drivers of private hire vehicles? Yet the proposal before us implies that dogs or other animals are capable of the same behaviour that some people indulge in after a certain hour.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining what I think would be the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Were we to adopt new clause 1 and amendment No. 2, we would impose on dogs something that we do not impose on people. Yet all the evidence is that some people—a minority—behave much more unacceptably than most dogs. Therefore, the proposals are unnecessary.
	The experience of the House, not to mention that of individual Members, the advice of our constituents and of the RNIB, is profound. Nearly every day we are delighted to see a guide dog in the House. Very often, the guide dog behaves much better than the average Member, yet no one would seek to impose draconian rules on Members regarding their behaviour. It is certainly not necessary for that wonderful dog, which comes in with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in general terms. However, I recall one time when the guide dog of a very distinguished Member performed in this Chamber in a way that I have never seen any right hon. or hon. Member perform.

Tom Clarke: I leave the defence of canines to their friends. It would be a dangerous path, and I am sure that you would not allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were I to deal with the behaviour of every Member at every moment the House is sitting.
	On the serious point, I think that we are making excellent progress.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is right that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) was reasonable in his analysis of some of the defects in new clause 1. We have yet to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the amendments would introduce uncertainty into the legislation and allow the unscrupulous minicab driver—I am sure that there are very few of those—to prevent those who use guide dogs or hearing dogs from taking them into the car? That uncertainty, which has not yet been touched on in the debate, is an added reason for rejecting the amendments.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) is absolutely right. He spoke, as always, very coherently. That takes me to my peroration.
	The Bill is long overdue. Those who train guide dogs for blind persons and hearing dogs for persons with hearing difficulties do a first-class job. I want more training to take place. More people should have access to these dogs, and people with disabilities should not be restricted in using transport. As I said, I regret that access to minicabs was not included in earlier disability legislation, and it is important to welcome a measure that is long overdue.

David Heath: This is an extremely important Bill, which I support. I am slightly perturbed by this group of amendments. I agree with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) did a good job of demolishing the case for his new clause and amendment. Perhaps he was not in full possession of the facts when he appended his name to the new clause in the first instance and has had time for reflection since then.

Sydney Chapman: I really cannot let the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) get away with that. I admitted that I was not a lawyer. I received legal advice, which I then understood. Irrespective of that, new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 were genuinely designed to strengthen the Bill, not destroy it. They might make it more detailed, admittedly, and would cover the rights of the vehicle's driver. However, having had other matters explained to me, on balance, I think that new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 are not necessary and are even irrelevant to the Bill's main purpose and objective.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Of course I accept at face value everything that he says about his intentions. I still have difficulty in reconciling the original intent of new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 with strengthening the Bill, but no doubt that point will be developed as we debate this further.

Stephen McCabe: With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) think it possible that the new clause gives us a glimpse of the real meaning of compassionate conservatism?

David Heath: That may well be the case, but as the hon. Gentleman says, he will have to apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who appears to have joined the gang. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon will have an opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and explain his intentions.

Tim Boswell: While in no sense wishing to rise to the bait of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), do the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and other Members present for this fascinating debate agree that whether or not we accept the amendment and new clause, it is important for the credibility of the Bill that these difficult issues, analogous but not identical to some of those raised in Committee, are fully debated to sustain the future credibility of the Bill?

David Heath: I am happy to accept that proposition. The hon. Gentleman will recall a similar balance of interests when we considered the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. That is one of the two Bills of the Session which, if they reach the statute book, will greatly advance the interests of those with visual impairment. It is important to reconcile conflicting interests in matters of this kind, so that everyone feels that their concerns have been properly heard and addressed in this place.
	Nevertheless, I find it difficult to understand why an assistance dog should be singled out as an animal or sentient being—I use that term in its broadest sense to include some members of the human race who may use private hire vehicles—subject to specific treatment under the law in such circumstances. As was correctly said earlier, by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge—

Tom Clarke: And Chryston.

David Heath: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
	As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out earlier, our experience and that of the trade shows that such problems are far more likely to be associated with human beings who may over-consume certain substances during an evening, hire a cab late at night and then find themselves indisposed. The likelihood of an animal being in that condition is much more remote, especially in the case of the best trained dogs in the country. They are wonderful creatures; they undergo extensive training and behave appropriately. It is somewhat perverse to single out that group for a specific requirement in the Bill.

Steve Webb: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should at least be some test of reasonableness in the provision? Some of the folk that we are dealing with may not be able to see what condition the dog is in and may not fully anticipate what it might do in the vehicle. Such people should not be subject to harsh penalties if they behaved reasonably, whatever might have happened later.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the owner is responsible for the actions of their animal, irrespective of whether they can determine its condition in advance. I suspect that action under civil law and recovery of costs through tort would still be possible.

Tom Harris: I agree with the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the new clause. Does he agree that it seems unfair to impose such a condition on the carriage of blind people and their dogs when, as far as I am aware, the same restriction and redress in law is not applied when a blind person takes his or her dog into a shop or workplace? Would that not be a brand new requirement under law?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that I am not qualified to address in detail, but I agree that the provision would be unique.
	The counter-argument of course is that there would be a unique requirement under law that the private hire operator could not refuse carriage of the animal, whereas if it were of a different species or if the circumstances were different, he or she would be within their rights to say, "No, I believe that were I to carry a water buffalo in the back of my cab, it would be likely to cause damage to my vehicle so I am within my rights not to carry said animal." That clearly does not apply to a guide dog. [Hon. Members: "What about children?"] Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) make the same point—we all know the dangers of travelling with children. However, that is to go a little way from the purpose of the proposal.
	The new clause is not necessary. Damage caused to a vehicle by the animals described in the Bill is covered by other areas of law and cost recovery would be available to the driver. The new clause is at the very least otiose and possibly damaging to the interests of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will withdraw it in due course.
	We have heard relatively little about amendment No. 2, which raises different problems. It provides that there would be no offence if
	"at the time of the refusal the assistance dog was in an excitable, agitated or boisterous state which might have endangered the drivers ability to properly control the private hire vehicle."
	I could just about understand that provision in the case of a black cab hailed on the street, when the driver could assess the state of the animal, which would be standing at the kerbside with its owner, and could suggest that the dog was not in an appropriate state of mind to be carried in the cab.
	Private hire vehicles would not normally be hailed in the street, however; indeed it is illegal. They are hired by a phone call or a visit to the company's office and it would be impossible for the driver—other than through a process of extra-sensory perception—to assess the state of mind of the animal in question. I cannot for the life of me understand the circumstances in which the amendment would be relevant other than as later rationalisation of a decision taken on other grounds. That would seem an unfortunate addition to the Bill as it would offer an avenue for abuse on the part of the private hire company.

Edward Davey: I do not want to put words into the mouth of the supporters of the amendment, but perhaps their intention is to put the responsibility on to the person who is booking the private hire vehicle. The hirer is supposed to make the assessment when they book their cab. Does my hon. Friend want to question—as I do—whether the provision impugns the behaviour and sensible conduct of all owners of such dogs?

David Heath: That would be one interpretation of the amendment, albeit a most unfortunate one if it were correct. I certainly would not want Members of this place to suggest that a person with a sensory impairment who was the owner or user of an assistance dog would be so lacking in proper care and consideration that they would hire a vehicle in the full knowledge that their dog was in a state quite alien to the normal conduct of such animals. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that that is one interpretation of the amendment.
	I prefer to assume that the purpose of the amendment is to allow the operator or driver of the car to refuse carriage on the grounds of the boisterous or unruly behaviour of the dog. However, I do not think that the driver would be able to assess that.

Tom Clarke: Following the very logical arguments that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is putting to the House, I wonder whether he would agree that my constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston would find it very unusual if their Member gave support to an amendment that includes a split infinitive: "to properly control". Given the excellent Scottish education system, they would have some reservations about that as well, would they not?

David Heath: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, who has clearly had the benefit of an excellent Scottish education. I shall not go too far down the road of parsing the clause in question, but I have a difference with the right hon. Gentleman about the appropriateness or otherwise of the split infinitive. The split infinitive was commonly used in the authorised version of the Bible, and historically. It is only a Victorian invention that equated the English infinitive with the Latin infinitive, which of course could not be split because it was incorporated in a single word.

Andrew Dismore: The same happens to be true of modern Greek, but that is by the by. I actually discussed this point with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) in the Library this morning. There is not only a split infinitive in amendment No. 2; there also happens to be a dropped apostrophe, but that does not take away from the substance of the amendment, on which I hope to address the House later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has now raised a very important point indeed, because the fact that the apostrophe is not there means that we have no way of assessing whether the amendment refers to a single driver or plural drivers, and that would have an effect on the operation of the clause.

Steve Webb: I want to bring my hon. Friend back to the question of reasonableness. Does he agree that a private hire driver expects wear and tear as part of the cost of the hire, and that includes wear and tear caused by people who make the seats dirty, and people who have accidents? These are things that happen in the back of a vehicle as part of the ordinary running of a private hire vehicle. Is it not wrong to penalise a particular group of disabled people when they have been acting reasonably? Reasonable wear and tear and reasonable accidents should surely not be included in the legislation.

David Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is right, although when we look at amendment No. 7, which the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was prepared to support, apparently without caring or troubling to look into its syntactical quality or grammatical errors—perhaps I do him a disservice; perhaps in the original form these errors were corrected—

Andrew Dismore: I was aware of the grammatical errors and I anticipated that the amendment might not be pressed to a vote. However, I believe that it raises some important issues, which we need to debate in the House, and should I catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have some points to make on it, in response to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made already.

David Heath: I am most grateful for that intervention; as a declaration of intent, it could not be bettered. I am not sure that it took the arguments a great deal further.
	I do not want to take too much of the House's time this morning. I accept that there is an issue about the control of animals, or of children—or of adults if they are not entirely compos mentis, whether that condition is chemically influenced or otherwise—in a vehicle, but I consider that there are already proper protections under the law for circumstances in which that would apply. My argument, quite apart from what I have said about the point of assessment—which is relevant to a private hire vehicle that is not a black cab—is that I see very little reason to include in this legislation a specific prohibition or qualification in relation to something that applies much more widely than to those with some form of sensory impairment who make use of an assistance dog. Indeed, I would suggest—reasonably, in my opinion—that those who use assistance dogs and those with sensory impairments are the least likely among the general population to cause what one can only assume to be the mischief that the new clause and the amendments seek to remedy. That is the bone of contention and that is why I do hope that, in the fullness of time, the new clause and the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
	We have not yet had the benefit of the advice of the hon. Member for Hendon on the amendments that he has tabled, so it is inappropriate to deal with them in detail until he has had the opportunity to address the House. My only observation is that I hope that he will explain why he feels that the amendments are necessary, given what is already in the Bill, and particularly why he tabled amendment No. 7, which seems to be a reiteration of something which clearly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think perhaps we should wait until we reach amendment No. 7 before we start to debate it.

David Heath: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had understood that it was grouped in this group. Am I wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is my fault.

David Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a great rarity for the occupant of the Chair to be wrong in any way in the Chamber and I do appreciate the immediate correction.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although many of us may think that it is not necessarily a great rarity for the Chair to be wrong, it is a great rarity for the Chair to admit it so quickly and so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think at this point we should return to the amendments.

David Heath: I had no intention of following the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) down that road. In my experience it is certainly not a rarity; it is simply a rarity for there to be anything wrong with the judgment of the Chair in the first instance, and I would reject utterly any suggestion to the contrary.
	I return to amendment No. 7, about which we have not yet heard from the hon. Member for Hendon. The point that I was seeking to make was that the amendment appears, as I read it, simply to reiterate and re-state in a different form a provision that is already in the Bill, which allows an operator to have a certificate exempting him from the provisions of the Bill for medical reasons. I am not clear—but no doubt we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman why I am wrong in my interpretation—why he wishes to re-state that in the Bill and why it is necessary to have a doubling up. Perhaps it is a belt and braces approach. Perhaps he is concerned that the subsection may be contestable in law and he would prefer to repeat the provision elsewhere in the Bill to enable him to direct his defence lawyers to a different part of the Bill in order to adduce additional legal evidence in the case. We do not know; we must wait until the hon. Gentleman makes his speech. We shall listen carefully to the arguments that he adduces in favour of his amendment.
	In conclusion, this group of amendments, which may be well-intentioned—I am perfectly happy to accept that the amendments are well-intentioned—in fact does very little to advance the interests of a Bill which, as I have already said, is extremely important. Indeed, I consider that they are to its detriment. Worse, they single out a group of people—a group who are already singled out by virtue of their sensory impairment and their need for the help of assistance dogs—in what could be considered a discriminatory way. That is unjustified. It is not relevant to the operation of the Bill, should it become statute. I hope that, having heard the arguments in some detail, those who have tabled the new clause and the amendments will, having reflected on the matter—it appeared that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had done quite a lot of reflection in advance—feel it appropriate to withdraw the new clause and not press the amendments, so that we may make further progress with the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: Before I start to justify my amendments and speak in favour of new clause 1, although perhaps not its precise wording, may I say that I very much sympathise with the aims of the Bill? I have read the briefing from the RNIB, and I very much hope that the Bill will pass today, although a number of issues need to be addressed. Even if the amendments are not accepted today, there will be an opportunity to consider some of the technical issues in another place if the Bill receives its Third Reading today, which I very much hope it will.
	In response to the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), I simply say that, although the Bill may become a little more complicated if some of my proposals are accepted, my objective is not to make it more complicated, but to ensure that we do not inadvertently create injustices for the owners and drivers of minicabs. Of course our job in the House is to try to ensure justice for those on both sides of any argument. Although it is the natural tendency of hon. Members to favour the less advantaged in society, such as those whom we are trying to help with the Bill—and rightly so—we must ensure, while doing so, that we do not inadvertently cause an injustice to someone else.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asks why we have singled out guide dogs. Perhaps he hinted at the answer in his own contribution: if someone wanted to take his pet water buffalo or warthog—or even his ordinary, small pet mongrel—in a cab or minicab, the driver would have the right to refuse to take him. I used to have a pet dog before being elected to the House. On one occasion, when she was in a slightly muddy condition, I tried to flag down a cab, but the driver refused to take her. She was called Griswald. She occasionally damaged the upholstery of my car, so I know that we need to address such issues.
	Dogs could be refused passage, as, of course, could a drunk on a Saturday night. We are creating the right for people to insist on being taken. That is the right thing to do, but people must accept the consequences of any damage that may arise from insisting on exercising that right.

David Heath: May I make it absolutely clear that I entirely understand that balance of interests? I think that I alluded to it in my comments. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I used to keep pigs. I never required a private hire carrier or black cab driver to try to take one of my pigs in the back of his cab.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend refers to his own experiences of attempting to take his dog in a cab but being refused because the dog had muddy paws. Does he think that those who drafted the new clause considered that muddy paws equated to damaging a vehicle?

Andrew Dismore: Muddy paws themselves cannot damage a vehicle. In fact, my dog had rather more than muddy paws on that occasion. However, if the muddy paws got on to the upholstery, the vehicle could be damaged. I have still got the car with the muddy paw marks in the back to prove it. Sometimes such marks do not come out.

Barry Gardiner: What happened to the dog?

Andrew Dismore: I am afraid that the dog died of old age in 1996, and I have not replaced her because, frankly, my lifestyle since being elected to the House would not allow me to look after a dog properly. As a responsible dog owner, I thought it inappropriate to get another one.

Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all hon. Members would appreciate not only my hon. Friend's skills as a dog owner, but the fact that he has a legal background. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said in his opening remarks that the current civil law of tort made provision for recovery of a debt if a vehicle is soiled. Will my hon. Friend confirm from his experience as a lawyer that that is the case now and that it would be the case if the Bill were to become a statute?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall come to that issue shortly, and there are some points to be made about the present legal position in the absence of the new clause.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) suggested in an intervention that, if the dog owner were sight impaired or blind, he might not be able to see the condition of the dog. That is an important point, but it goes against the argument, which he was trying to advance, that the owner may not be aware of the condition of the dog at the time. The briefing from the RNIB says that that will be a very unusual occurrence and that it would arise only if the dog were ill, for example, because assistance dogs are properly trained and well behaved. I certainly take that point on board, but even if such occurrences are comparatively rare, it is important to ensure that the rights of the car owner or driver are protected, because the damage could be expensive to repair.

Chris Pond: Does my hon. Friend understand that the difficulty that may arise is that, if a driver says, "I'm sorry. I am not going to take you and your dog because your dog is in a poor state and might damage my vehicle," the owner of the dog may be unable to assess whether that is the truth? That is a very serious loophole in the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: If the new clause said that, I would agree with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid it does not. It relates to carrying the dog in the car, not to refusing to take the dog in the car. It would apply ex post facto, rather than on refusing to admit the dog. That is dealt with in amendment No. 2, which I shall come to later. So there are some important considerations to bear in mind.
	There is a problem with the wording of the new clause. It refers to "the full cost", and there could be arguments about the full cost of restoring the vehicle to its previous condition. I would have preferred the new clause to refer to "reasonable cost", as perhaps that would be a fairer way to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon. The phrase "reasonable cost" would have been better, but perhaps we could consider that on another occasion.

Tim Boswell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—the House should be made aware—that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has advised that dogs trained by it are covered by public liability insurance and that the cost of repairing any damage so caused would not fall on the blind person? So it seems that the point that he makes has been taken into account.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When we debate amendment No. 2, I shall make a point about the definition of the term "assistance dog". That definition raises some issues that the hon. Gentleman might not have anticipated in making that intervention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that fact, but of course public liability insurance applies only if there is liability in the first place. That point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has referred us to the RNIB briefing, which simply says that such damage would be covered by the common law of tort. I should like to know a little more about that.
	Before being elected to the House, I practised as a solicitor for 20 years in the law of tort, and I can envisage something of a minefield. For example, if a case were brought on negligence, the question would be whether the dog owner was negligent. The dog owner may well be able to say, "I was not negligent", for a variety of reasons. Could such an action be brought in contract? Doing so could be difficult because the contract may not be with the car driver and car owner, but with the minicab company, subcontracting the call to the car driver. So it may be difficult to bring the action in contract.
	There is an argument about whether the dog owner would be liable under the Animals Act 1971. Hon. Members have said that the behaviour of guide dogs is always excellent, so it could be strongly argued that that Act may not apply because it normally clicks in when strict liability is involved and the species of animal has a propensity to behave badly. If the normal propensity of the breed or species of guide dog is to behave properly, it may not be strictly liable under the Act. It may come under other provisions, but then there are arguments about whether liability is involved.

Lawrie Quinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that taxis in some seaside towns, not least the towns of Scarborough and Whitby, display the terms of carriage, which often state the fine for soiling. Under the new clause, the terms of the contract would have to be made available in braille, and before a booking was made those terms would have to be explained. Does that not provide over-regulation, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) does not intend?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point, which relates to the distinction I was making between black cabs and minicabs. If a driver picks up a passenger off the street, the contract of hire is immediately between the passenger and the driver, who, as part of the contract, can specify the terms, which could include the need for liquidated damages should this problem arise. The difficulty in this case is that, first, the driver has no say in whether to accept the contract—we are making that clear in the Bill—and, secondly, the contract may not be between the driver and the passenger, and, thus, there is no privity of contract that can be enforced between the driver and the passenger, because the contract may be between the passenger and the minicab company, which subcontracts the hire to the driver. That is the problem that one can reach in contract.
	Whether I am right or wrong, these points are arguable at law. I would hate the small claims court to have to adjudicate between a sight-impaired person and a minicab driver. It would be far better to have a very clear statutory term under which, if damage is done, the reasonable cost could be met, whether through the public liability insurance policy to which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred, or by the owner of the dog.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend's argument, as I understand it, hinges on two things. One is compulsion—the minicab driver is compelled to take the dog or the animal—and the other is potential ignorance on the part of the passenger as to the condition of the dog. What I fail to understand—perhaps my hon. Friend will enlighten me—is why he does not envisage a minicab driver being able to say to the owner of the animal about to board his cab under compulsion, "Your dog looks a bit ropey to me, are you sure he is all right to travel?" The passenger, or potential passenger, is therefore made completely aware of the condition of the dog, and everything else will follow. I am not a lawyer, however, so I accept that I probably do not understand these things.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. That assumes, however, that the driver can see that the dog is ill. The dog may have an illness that is not immediately apparent to the driver. My point is that a whole series of arguments could end up having to be litigated on in the county court. In practice, however, we could deal with the problem very simply with a new clause along these lines. I fully accept that the new clause is not perfect in its current form, and that can perhaps be corrected in another place. Important issues need to be addressed, however, to make sure that we deal fairly with the obligation that we are imposing on the driver.

Steve Webb: I thought that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) was going to make the opposite point. Let us imagine that there is a blind person with a dog, and that a driver who does not really want to take that person pulls up and says, "Sorry guvnor, that dog looks a bit iffy to me, I won't take you," and drives off. If that loophole is put in the Bill under amendment No. 2, what can a blind person do? They cannot report the number of the cab that has just driven off. Does not that make a nonsense of the whole Bill?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those arguments come under amendment No. 2, and I shall address that point separately. At the moment, we are not dealing with those circumstances; we are dealing with circumstances in which the dog is in the vehicle and causes damage. That is not the situation pronounced on by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), in which the dog has not got into the vehicle. We are talking about a situation in which the dog has got into the vehicle and caused damage. On the question of whether the driver can refuse to accept the hire, under the Bill in its current form he could not refuse to take the dog, no matter what was wrong with it.

Barry Gardiner: I cannot allow my hon.—and learned—Friend to get away with that. His own justification for new clause 1 was on the basis of the compulsion on the driver to admit the passenger with the dog. He cannot, therefore, divorce the two elements that he has logically connected.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, these provisions are not necessarily both acceptable in their current form, and I fully accept that those points need to be addressed separately. At the moment, we are dealing with the position in which the dog has caused damage to the vehicle. A separate issue arises in relation to whether a dog could be refused admission to the vehicle for whatever reason, but that is not the point that I am addressing in relation to new clause 1. I have probably exhausted my arguments on new clause 1, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is tempted to intervene yet again.

Barry Gardiner: I hesitate to intervene once again, but I think that it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to give the House an exposition. Again, I claim no particular knowledge of the law, especially of the law of tort, but perhaps we should consider the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. As I understand it, that case hinges on the obligation on a person to ensure that anything that comes from their property does not do damage elsewhere. I understand that that has caused many a legal case and much dispute. This is one occasion on which I would welcome listening to the perorations of my hon.—and learned—Friend.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. As he will no doubt recall, Rylands v. Fletcher concerned the law of nuisance and the release of water. Of course, we are talking about a rather different release of water under this provision from that which applied in Rylands v. Fletcher. That case concerned a piece of land that was flooded by water that came from another piece of land. It is concerned with the principle of a hazard arising on one piece of land or property and affecting another. Cases have been brought in relation to damage by fire and so forth. I do not really think that the law of nuisance applies in the circumstances that we are debating.
	I want to move on to amendment No. 6—I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. I promise the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that I shall deal with his points in relation to amendment No. 2 when I get to it.
	Clause 1(5) indicates that the only grounds for granting a certificate of exemption are medical grounds. That is somewhat restrictive, as there could be other grounds on which it would be perfectly fair to grant an exemption. My amendment would allow a licensing authority to take into account other reasonable—not fanciful—grounds. I shall give the example of someone who has a pathological fear of dogs. When I have been out door knocking and canvassing with my campaign team, one or two of them have been terrified of dogs when we knock on doors. I do not think that that is a medical condition—some may think that it is a natural reaction—but when a dog is barking on the other side of the door, they tend to run away and send me instead. I always take dog biscuits with me when I am out campaigning, just in case. That is a useful tip for all hon. Members.

Claire Ward: I would not wish my hon. Friend to fall foul of the electoral law, but does giving biscuits to dogs when canvassing for votes constitute the bribery or treating of voters and their families?

Andrew Dismore: At the risk of trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that giving dog biscuits is treating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My patience is beginning to be tried. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the amendment in hand?

Andrew Dismore: I give way again.

David Heath: I cannot quite let the hon. Gentleman get away with the suggestion that a pathological fear of dogs is not a medical condition. If something is pathological, it is medical. If it is not pathological, it is not medical.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Perhaps I slightly overstated my case.

Barry Gardiner: May I help my hon.—and learned—Friend out? Although the minicab driver may not have a medical condition and be able to obtain an exemption certificate, he may have a standing contract with someone who has an allergy to dogs. Does my hon.—and learned—Friend agree that such a circumstance presents the reasonable ground covered by the amendment?

Andrew Dismore: I will come on to the issue of allergies shortly. I am dealing with the point that some people are frightened of dogs.

Tom Harris: One of the weaknesses of my hon. Friend's argument is that unscrupulous taxi drivers may simply decide that they do not want to carry animals. It would be very difficult to prove that they are telling the truth about their pathological fear of dogs. Will my hon. Friend consider that point?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has a point, and I deal with it in the amendment that considers the evidence that should be considered by the licensing authority. A pathological fear of dogs is an example of the circumstances that might not be covered by the provision in clause 1 for a new section 37A(5) that outlines the grounds on which an exemption might be granted. If someone is genuinely frightened of dogs—

Claire Ward: That is medical.

Andrew Dismore: That person might not consider himself to be ill, so I am not entirely convinced that it is covered by the provision for medical grounds. The licensing authority should, however, be able to take account of such circumstances.

Edward Davey: On amendment No. 6, the hon. Gentleman must convince the House that there are other reasonable grounds by which an exemption could be made by the licensing authority. So far, he has failed to give one example that has not been countered by the arguments of other hon. Members. He must come up with a concrete example before the House can accept the amendment. I ask him to do so.

Andrew Dismore: I stand by my view that a fear of dogs is not a medical condition. The people with whom I canvass would not say that they are ill because they are frightened of dogs. They think it is a natural reaction. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that people sometimes have a mental illness that creates such a fear, but people can have a genuine fear that does not go that far.

Tom Clarke: I would not dream of suggesting that my hon. Friend is making a meal of this, let alone a dog's breakfast. However, when people have a phobia, the treatment involves confronting them with the conditions that led to the phobia. Given the charm of guide dogs and hearing dogs, would it not be to the advantage of people with a fear of dogs to have more experience of dealing with them?

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, the first time that a driver is exposed to a guide dog should not be when he is about to take charge of a moving vehicle. Perhaps the RNIB could help people to overcome their fears through other programmes. However, the provision could create a hazard not only for the driver, the passenger and the dog but for other road users. The driver will be travelling along looking over his shoulder to see whether he will be attacked by what appears to be the placid dog sitting in the back.

Claire Ward: I realise that my hon. Friend is trying very hard to justify the amendment. However, I find it difficult to accept that what he describes as a fear of dogs will not simply mean that the driver will refuse to carry dogs because he does not like them. My hon. Friend must establish the fact that such a fear will not be covered by the provision that relates to medical grounds. I suspect that the amendment would create a loophole so that drivers would be able to say, "I have a fear of dogs, but I have not been to the doctor about it." They would say that just because they simply do not like dogs.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not dispute that it is a potential problem. However, it should be left to the discretion of the licensing authority to satisfy itself that there is evidence for a driver's claim that he is afraid of dogs. That point is covered in amendment No. 7, and that answers the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who asked me what the purpose of the amendment was.

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the House is not yet with the hon. Gentleman on this point. I understand his motives, and we are grateful to him for allowing us to debate the point. It has focused our attention on the matter in hand. However, I am concerned that we would place on the licensing authority an obligation that it would find almost impossible to carry out. It would find it impossible reasonably to assess someone's claims that he had a fear of dogs if there were no medical evidence to back them up.

Bob Spink: rose—

Andrew Dismore: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and deal with two points at once.

Bob Spink: I agree with the mood of the House. I am not convinced that inserting the words "or other reasonable" grounds would be a good move. It would provide an escape clause. We are aware that specific medical conditions such as agoraphobia and arachnophobia, which is the fear of a particular animal, exist. However, if someone had a true phobia of dogs, he would have sought medical help. He would have a medical history, so the fear would be covered by the provision relating to medical grounds. Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that the problem would be dealt with in that way?

Andrew Dismore: I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) when we consider the next amendment. On the other point, some people do not consider themselves to have a medical condition, but they are frightened of dogs.

Stephen McCabe: I do not agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but he is right on one point. It is perfectly possible to have a rational fear of dogs. For example, a person might have been bitten more than once or someone close to them might have been attacked. The fear would not constitute a medical condition, but it would be perfectly rational and understandable.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes succinctly the point that I have tried to make in the past few minutes. That is why a driver should be able to use other reasonable grounds for refusing to carry a dog.

Chris Pond: rose—

Claire Ward: rose—

Andrew Dismore: We will have one last round, before I move to my next point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward).

Claire Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing us to pursue the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) suggested that, if the driver, a member of his family or one of his friends had been bitten, we should perhaps consider that a reasonable ground for his refusing to carry a dog. However, that argument is not reasonable, because the fact that a member of his family or an acquaintance had been bitten should not allow him to continue his prejudice against dogs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) thinks that such circumstances justify the amendment, I believe that they merely highlight another weakness in it.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I think that she is wrong. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). The fact is that people have a fear of dogs, and the question is whether they can satisfy the licensing authority that it is a genuine fear. If they cannot do that, they will not receive the exemption.
	To suggest that an exemption can be allowed only on medical grounds boxes the driver in. There may be other reasons, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. I cannot come up with another example now. I am focusing on the one that we are discussing because we need to make progress. It is wrong to say that there is only one reason why a licence exemption should be granted. I am concerned that there may be many other reasons that we cannot think of now, which if brought to our attention could properly be considered a fair reason for refusal. It is a matter for the licensing authority in the light of the evidence that is presented to it.

Chris Pond: My hon. Friend has referred to the need for drivers or operators to persuade licensing authorities that they have a genuine fear of dogs. Does he realise that that would introduce a real inconsistency from one licensing authority to another? Such inconsistency would allow real loopholes. Unless we have exemptions that are based on medical criteria and which have some element of objectivity, there could be a serious weakness in the implementation of the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: I hear what my hon. Friend says but I do not agree with him. Fear of dogs may be a subjective fear, but it is an objective issue for the licensing authority to determine from case to case. I do not see the issue arising very often. I believe that simply saying that there can be no reason other than a medical one is creating an injustice that we may not even be aware of as we consider the Bill.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman said that he cannot think of another reasonable reason, but that there might be one so we should accept the amendment just in case. That is not a persuasive argument for the House. Surely it is a matter of the balance of rights. There is the right of the person who cannot see to travel in the same way as a sighted person can travel versus the right of the person who is driving to avoid the discomfiture that he might suffer from a fear of dogs. We must find that balance. In saying what is reasonable, how do we measure fear? Where do we draw the line? A medical condition is definable and can be justified and argued. By introducing "reasonable", we are giving lawyers work. I think that we should reject the amendment.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that the issue is where the balance lies. That was where I started my speech. Where does the balance lie in ensuring that we do justice between the two parties? I am concerned that we may end up creating an injustice by not allowing slightly more flexibility to the licensing authority.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has pursued this point with some passion and at some length. I am interested to know his motivation. Is he expressing a concern, having read the Bill in detail, or has he received representations from minicab owners in his constituency or elsewhere, which have led him to pursue this point with passion?

Andrew Dismore: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is simple. I have read the Bill and I perceive injustices and loopholes. We should address them today and give our concerns an airing. I will listen to the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), when he replies. He may convince me that I am wrong, or he may say that he sees some merits in some of my points.
	I move on to amendment No. 7. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked me why we need it. I have been debating, in responding to various interventions, the question of medical conditions. The starting point is that clause 1(5) reads:
	"If the licensing authority is satisfied . . . on medical grounds",
	it should
	"issue a certificate of exemption".
	Clause 1(6) deals with the issues that should be taken into account in
	"determining whether to issue a certificate of exemption".
	The issues that should be taken into account all relate to the particular vehicle. They do not relate to the medical condition itself.
	I am concerned that the licensing authority is not required to examine the medical condition on the basis of medical evidence. Almost everyone in the Chamber made that point to me during our discussion of amendment No. 6. There would have to be medical evidence to prove that there should be an exemption. However, the Bill does not provide that the driver must provide medical evidence to justify the reasons why he should be exempt. He could merely say, "I have an allergy to dogs" or whatever. The licensing authority would then say, "All right, fair enough." According to the Bill, the driver does not have to produce medical evidence to justify what he is saying.

Bob Spink: If the taxi driver refuses to take the person who cannot see and his dog, how could the person who cannot see take down the taxi driver's number?

Andrew Dismore: That is a rather silly intervention. The minicab will have been booked through the mini cab company, which will know the name of the driver who was allocated the job. That intervention is not pertinent to amendment No. 7.

Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Dismore: I shall develop my argument and then give way to my hon. Friend. I am concerned that subsections (5) and (6) do not sit together as well as they should. I am not sure why the physical characteristics of the vehicle, or kind of vehicle, are relevant to the medical condition. Yet there is no requirement to produce medical evidence. It seems that that is a loophole and something that a driver could exploit. He could give the licensing authority a great spiel about why he has a problem with dogs without having to justify that with medical evidence.

Lawrie Quinn: Many Members will be aware that my hon. Friend has great expertise in industrial and health and safety law. I return to my earlier intervention about the relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor. I followed my hon. Friend's argument. However, in terms of health and safety provisions at work, what is the liability in the relationship between the subcontractor and the cab hire company? Surely anyone who found himself in medical difficulties because of taking jobs that involved the carrying of a dog on many occasions could take some action against his employer or the person to which he was contracted, namely the minicab hire company.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend's intervention raises complicated areas of law, especially in relation to vicarious liability in terms of the main contractor and the subcontractor. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not like me to go down that road. However, my hon. Friend has a valid point that needs to be addressed at some stage.
	The purpose of health and safety legislation is to ensure that people do not get injured or ill in the first place. However, if they do get ill or injured, there must be compensation arrangements afterwards. In my view, the purpose of health and safety legislation is preventive rather than compensatory.

Gareth Thomas: Is my hon. Friend not stating the obvious with amendment No. 7? What evidence does he have, for example, that the licensing authority does not currently require medical evidence to be provided? Is not the solution to his concern about the licensing authority to ensure that those who sit on the authority carry out a rigorous inspection? Perhaps the House might like to nominate him to sit on the licensing authority, but only if it meets on Friday mornings.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was once a member of the Westminster City Council licensing committee. We had great fun considering the licensing of sex shops, but that is another story.
	Perhaps I might answer my hon. Friend by putting his question back to him the other way round. There is nothing in the Bill that provides that the licensing authority should consider medical evidence. It is an open question. Some licensing authorities may say, "We take the driver's word for it." Other authorities may be more rigorous. We return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham about inconsistencies between the approach adopted by different authorities. If we include in the Bill a requirement that they must take into account medical evidence—they can specify what they want—that would address the issue.
	The amendment deals with allergy to dogs. That is because the RNIB briefing dismisses the point about that being equivalent to carrying a passenger with a heavy perfume to which some people could be allergic. It is a little more complicated than that. We should take into account the possibility that someone has an allergy to dogs, because it is potentially dangerous if a driver is sneezing while driving.

Bill Wiggin: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience of licensing, can he tell me how many cases of exemptions he thinks will be brought about on these grounds?

Andrew Dismore: I have no idea, and I do not think that anybody knows. We know roughly how many minicabs there are and how many guide dogs there are, but we do not know, because the question has never arisen, how many people are allergic to dogs or have other medical reasons why they should not carry them. Nevertheless, it is something for which we should provide. In response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the point of amendment No. 7 is that it would enable a licensing authority to require medical evidence in justification, whether it is a note from a GP or something more serious. At the moment, the Bill does not require that.

Chris Pond: I wonder if I can help my hon. Friend as regards the scale of the problem that we are addressing. I am grateful to the RNIB for digging out the relevant Department of Health figures. I understand that approximately 4 per cent. of the adult population have asthma that is so severe as to require regular medical supervision, but of course the number of those whose asthma or other allergy would be triggered by dogs will be much smaller than that. Although I accept that such allergies are not to be sneezed at, there are not huge numbers of people who will be affected by the problem.

Andrew Dismore: The RNIB briefing tells us that there are 150,000 private hire vehicles, and 4 per cent. of that figure represents quite a lot of people. I take my hon. Friend's point that not all of them will have a dog allergy, although some will, and perhaps he can do some arithmetic on that basis. However, a sufficient number of people will be affected to warrant our trying to ensure that their interests are protected.

Edward Davey: The amendment does not specify the type of medical evidence that the hon. Gentleman would wish a licensing authority to take account of, so it is superfluous. Clause 1(5) says:
	"If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate on medical grounds".
	Given that, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a licensing authority would not want to see medical evidence?

Andrew Dismore: The simple answer is that we do not know. Some licensing authorities may have a very busy agenda to get through on the day the driver turns up and says that he has the allergy. Those of us who have been in local government know that many matters pass through relatively quickly without the scrutiny that they deserve.

Edward Davey: I know that the hon. Gentleman served on Westminster city council, which is known for one or two methods that are not beyond reproach. Surely he would agree, on the basis of his experience and knowledge of local councils, which are for the most part the licensing authorities that we are talking about, that most of them would act in a responsible manner and would in no way wish to grant an exemption certificate that would disadvantage some of their own residents unless they were assured that there was evidence to back up the driver's claim.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Most licensing authorities would take their responsibilities seriously. However, given that subsection (6) specifies that the authority should take into account the characteristics of the vehicle, it seems peculiar not also to draw attention to the medical evidence that is required. That is putting the cart before the driver.
	As for allergy, that can be a serious hazard for a driver, because if they are driving along the road sneezing they may lose control of the vehicle. That is an important factor that the RNIB, somewhat unfairly, discounted.

Bill Wiggin: I am curious about this. If the hon. Gentleman is right that a driver would refuse to take a guide dog because he was worried that he would have an accident if he did so, which law would he have broken? Would he be driving with undue care and attention, or would he be in default of the Bill?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but he is not following the point of the amendment. We are dealing with an exemption for a driver who has a medical condition. If a driver were exempted, he would not be put in the position of having to take the dog. The problem is that if he took the dog because he did not have an exemption, what would happen to him then? He would not have broken the law under the Bill because he took the dog, but he could fall foul of the general laws relating to loss of control of the vehicle, careless driving or whatever.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier I raised a point of order to say that 49 Bills are on the Order Paper for consideration today. Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that the Government are backing this Bill and the Commonwealth Bill. Is it in order for such lengthy debate to take place at this stage, preventing us from reaching other worthy Bills? Is there any mechanism whereby we can reach the other Bills, and what chance do we have of getting them through today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady knows full well how these matters are normally dealt with. As long as hon. Members who are addressing the House are in order, it is not a matter on which the Chair should intervene.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fairness, I have dealt fully with the point of order.

Andrew Dismore: If the hon. Lady is concerned to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised, that is exactly what I am doing. As I said, I very much support the Bill, but certain issues need to be addressed.
	On amendment No. 8, the certificate of exemption refers to particular vehicles, but does not say that the driver has to be named. It is relatively straightforward, and I hope relatively uncontroversial, that a certificate should say whom it is granted to as well as in relation to which vehicles.
	Amendment No. 9 deals with the period of exemption. If an exemption is granted, it should be for a finite period, not indefinitely, and a period of 12 months would be fair in relation to people who have a medical condition that is transient, so that it is appropriate for the exemption to be re-examined from time to time.
	Much play was made earlier about amendment No.2, which deals with the behaviour of dogs. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said that he is not going to press it, because, apart from the serious grammatical errors, it raises a rather different issue as regards the construction of the Bill.
	We have assumed that the assistance dog is properly trained by the RNIB or whoever, and that it is a placid dog that does what it is told and behaves itself. We all know that dogs that are properly trained by a registered charity, such as the RNIB, behave. However, proposed new section 37A(9) does not stipulate that. Proposed new subsection (9)(c) states that an assistance dog is one that has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist someone with epilepsy or other stipulated conditions. The problem is that the definition of assistance dogs in the context of a blind or deaf person does not state that it has to be trained by a prescribed charity.
	If the electors of Hendon decide that they have had enough of me, there is no reason why I should not set myself up as a guide dog trainer. I have no qualifications or skills to do that. I could claim that I have a dog that is trained to look after blind people, but it could be a lively dog that jumps around a lot. It could be Scooby Doo.
	We have a serious problem to address. If the definition of assistance dog does not say that the dog has to be trained properly by a prescribed charity, there is a serious loophole in the Bill. An assistance dog that has not been properly trained by a prescribed charity could be excitable, agitated or boisterous. In those circumstances, the driver might be in a difficult position.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend mentions a loophole. On amendment No. 2, what would happen if a dog became boisterous or agitated during a journey? If the Scooby Doo dog becomes animated—although Scooby Doo is, of course, already animated—will the driver be able to stop in the middle of the journey and ask the passenger with said dog to leave? How would that affect the original contract?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. Amendment No. 2 deals with the behaviour of a dog before it gets into the vehicle. It does not deal with what happens if a dog becomes agitated after it gets into the vehicle. I suspect that amendment No. 10 addresses that problem, although I accept that it may not be on all fours with my hon. Friend's argument. I would be much happier if the definition of assistance dog in amendments Nos. 2 and 10 applied to a dog that had been trained by a prescribed charity no matter what the disability. If we do not address that serious loophole today, it will have to be sorted out in another place.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman's point does not stand up to much analysis. All dogs that are trained for use by a blind or deaf person, or the people covered by proposed new section 37A(9)(c), will have a certificate to show that they have received full training. Should the driver of a private hire vehicle wish to question whether a dog was properly trained and thus came within the parameters of the Bill, he could ask for such a certificate. I should be surprised if the people who own the dogs did not have the certificate with them.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He is right to say that proposed new section 37A(9)(c) refers to a dog that has been trained by a prescribed charity. It covers people with, for instance, epilepsy and problems of mobility and manual dexterity. However, proposed new section 37A(9)(a) and (b) do not say that a dog has to be trained by a prescribed charity.
	I fully accept that if the dog is trained by the RNIB, RNID or a similar organisation, it may have a certificate of training. I am sure that both the driver and the dog owner would be confident that the dog would not be boisterous and would be properly behaved, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry. The problem is what happens if the dog has not been trained in those circumstances. If no training certificate can be produced, how can the driver be guaranteed that the dog will be well behaved?

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend raises an important point and he has proved why it is important to scrutinise the Bill. Proposed new section 37A(9)(a) and (b) could provide an opportunity for an unsuitable person to train a guide dog for a blind or deaf person. However, surely a dog could not be trained to guide a blind person if it was boisterous by nature.

Andrew Dismore: The problem is that that becomes a matter for the lawyers in relation to what is meant by "trained" and "guide". If there is a certificate to say that a dog has been trained by a registered charity, that would be conclusive. However, there is no provision for that. I think it is a drafting error that could be corrected in another place. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow responds, he will tell us whether there are organisations that are not registered charities that do such work.
	However, there is a loophole. As I said, there is no reason in principle why I should not set myself up as a dog trainer, although bearing in mind my experiences with Griswald it is clear that I would not be very good at it. She seemed to be trying to train me rather than the other way around, which is the problem with many pet dogs.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman says he thinks he has found a loophole, which he describes as a drafting error. Does he really think that lots of people are queueing up to pass off their dogs as guide dogs and dogs for the deaf? Does he have any evidence to back up that claim?

Andrew Dismore: There is no reason for people to do that at the moment. However, we are talking about imposing an obligation on someone who is outside the guide dog loop. It is fine if someone who does not represent a registered charity agrees to train a dog and the deaf or blind person is happy with the dog, but we are proposing to impose an obligation on someone else who has to take it for granted that the guide dog is what it purports to be.
	There are rules about allowing guide dogs into restaurants. I suspect we could be opening a can of worms for restaurants as well—if I can put it that way—if we go down the route of not specifying what we mean by a guide dog. The hon. Gentleman may well be right; perhaps it is belt and braces.

Bob Spink: We are in the realms of the absurd. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we issue licences for the dog to show that it has been trained? That would be a dog licence in reverse because it would be attached to the dog rather than the owner. Who would issue that licence? Would we require an inspection department to check that the standards were being upheld? Would he call that department Ofdog or Ofwoof? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on and let us make some progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying far from the point.

Andrew Dismore: I am pleased that you are getting into the spirit of the morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The intervention of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was rather silly. The answer is simple: if the Bill stipulated that the dog had been trained by a prescribed charity, the problem would disappear. Both parties could thus have confidence, and the law would be confident that a proper arrangement was in place for the dog. I am not sure of the precise arrangements for a dog that the RNIB trains and whether it has a certificate, docket—or dogget—to prove it. If so, there would be a clear presumption that the dog was properly trained.

Claire Ward: I want to revert to the serious point about the definition of an assistance dog. Let us consider dogs who are being trained but who are not yet fully trained to be guide dogs for the blind or for the deaf. The dog obviously needs to be exposed to circumstances that it will encounter later. It needs to be able to guide a person with a disability into a minicab or taxi or on to public transport. The definition in the Bill does not cover dogs that are being trained. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should consider that?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I assume that part of a dog's training is in getting in and out vehicles, and that the driver will be part of the training set-up, and will therefore know the propensities of dogs that are being trained.
	There are serious training problems. I shall not go into the matter in detail, but the Bill does not even define "dog".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that hon. Members know what a dog is.

Andrew Dismore: When we considered hunting with dogs, the definition caused problems.
	Amendment No. 10 does not go as far as amendment No. 2, but I believe that it should be accepted. The RNIB brief states that a properly trained assistance dog is required to sit on the floor between the owner's legs or lie down in the well of a cab. However, what happens if the dog is too big for the vehicle or if the person in charge of the dog refuses to make it sit on the floor? A dog can make a terrible mess by sitting on a car seat, especially if it is moulting. It is fair for the driver to be able to insist that the dog sits on the floor. That is also good practice.

Edward Davey: The problem with amendment No. 10 is that it fails to deal with small private hire vehicles. A dog's inability to sit on the floor may be no fault of the owner, and may have nothing to do with the dog's size or its behaviour.

Andrew Dismore: The amendment is trying to deal with that. The hon. Gentleman should consider it with proposed new section 37A(6), which refers to
	"the physical characteristics of the private vehicle"
	that could be a ground for exemption.

Tom Harris: Amendment No. 10 refers to the dog being
	"so large as not to be able to sit comfortably on the floor of the vehicle".
	How can one ascertain whether the dog is comfortable?

Andrew Dismore: A dog that is uncomfortable in a vehicle lets it be known pretty quickly. It will not stay put. We must also consider the animal welfare issues. If a dog is uncomfortable, it is not right to force it to go into the vehicle.

Claire Ward: Who will determine whether the dog is comfortable: the person who is being guided or the driver?

Andrew Dismore: The dog—although my hon. Friend has a point.
	Perhaps proposed new section 37A(6), which deals with the physical characteristics of the vehicle, covers paragraph (a) in amendment No. 10. An exemption could perhaps be made under it if the vehicle were too small to take a dog. However, it does not cover paragraph (b), which relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made when he asked what would happen if a dog that initially sat on the floor tried to get on to the seat or started to jump about. Paragraph (b) would deal with a dog that started to misbehave during a journey because it would allow the driver to stop and require the dog to leave the vehicle.

Chris Pond: I am reliably informed that few vehicles that are used as minicabs are not sufficiently large to take an alsatian, which is the largest assistance dog. Surely that practical point does not need to detain us for too long.

Andrew Dismore: I agree, and I hope that the point will not detain us. My speech has been longer than I intended because I have taken a lot of interventions. The debate has been important because we have aired the issues well.

Stephen McCabe: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is desperate to move on, but I want to consider his previous point. He said that amendment No. 10 would give the driver the power to stop the vehicle and order the blind person and the dog out. Does he seriously mean that he is prepared to table an amendment to a Bill that aims to protect blind and disabled people, to allow a driver to stop in the middle of nowhere and order the dog and the blind or disabled person out because the dog is irritating the driver? Is he seriously proposing that?

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend says, the Bill is about the "carriage of disabled persons", but the long title also refers to "carriage" of "guide dogs". We must therefore consider the animal welfare issues that affect the dog as well as protecting the disabled person who is being guided. As I said, perhaps proposed new section 37A(6) deals with the problem of the dog being uncomfortable in the vehicle, but the Bill does not cover paragraph (b) of amendment No. 10 and the problem of the dog refusing to sit or stay on the floor.
	There are serious road safety considerations to be taken into account. The driver is responsible at all times for controlling the vehicle. The dog could jump about, try to get into the passenger's lap, or look out of the window. I admit that my dog used to do that. That could cause a serious problem for vehicle control. If the vehicle had an accident, the person who was hit would sue the driver. Would the driver have a claim against the owner for not controlling the dog? That takes us back to tort, which we discussed at the beginning of my contribution.

Barry Gardiner: Everybody understands that a driver has a responsibility to his passenger and other road users for the safety of his vehicle and his conduct on the high road. None the less, a less nuclear approach might be to provide that the driver must stop the vehicle until the animal has been brought under control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said, it may be too much to evict the passenger and the animal from the vehicle.
	In passing, I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking for more than an hour and eight minutes, which was the record for a Friday morning.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a tempting point and there is some merit in his argument. The point may well be one that is addressed in the other place. It is a question of doing justice and striking a balance between the passenger and the dog, the minicab operator and other road users. A slight difficulty arises—especially if the minicab driver is working to a schedule—of how to deal with a dog that cannot be brought under control. As always, my hon. Friend has come up with a sensible compromise in respect of the points that I am making. It is a shame that he did not table his own amendment to that effect, as we could then have explored that possibility.
	In my amendments, I have tried to draw attention to one or two drafting problems in the Bill, and I am interested in hearing the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. If, as I hope, the Bill proceeds to the other place, some of the points I have made might receive further consideration, although I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will be able to respond to them today.

Tim Boswell: So far, the debate has been fascinating. The group of amendments was introduced succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), and has been spoken to by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) at rather greater length—and, to be fair, in greater detail and with a lawyer's perceptiveness. It is also fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has triggered a clutch of questions and counterpoints, which is the proper role of the House of Commons. We sometimes hope that such matters might be dealt with more expeditiously in Committee, but we all agree on the importance of their being properly resolved before a Bill passes to the other place.

Andrew Dismore: I did not have the good fortune to be appointed to the Standing Committee on the Bill, otherwise I would have made my points there.

Tim Boswell: As one who was a member of the Committee, I can say that it was the Committee's loss that the hon. Gentleman was not able to participate in our deliberations.
	Conscious of the time, I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition that although the debate has been wide ranging, we should have some regard to the generality of the issues involved. I do not often quote my own remarks, but I shall do so briefly. In the Standing Committee, in response to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I said:
	"The legislation will allow us to prevent people from using the excuse of some theoretical inconvenience when there is no problem at all."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 12 June 2002; c. 12.]
	That remains my strong view, and I know that it is shared by the Bill's promoter, who responded to my remark.
	As all hon. Members have said, we want the Bill to succeed. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) remarked, it is all of a piece with the development of law from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through subsequent amending legislation. It would remove or repair an omission by including private hire vehicles in the provisions, along with public carriage vehicles.
	A huge complex of law and practice is building up in the field of disability discrimination, dealing with the sensitive handling of guide dogs and other assistance dogs as well as the strict letter of the law, and nearly all of it seems to work perfectly well. This morning, only one reference has been made to the admission of guide dogs and assistance dogs to public restaurants; as far as I know, when that has happened, no major concerns of public health, order or nuisance have arisen. I see no reason why the provisions of the Bill should give rise to exceptions.
	I believe that I am right in saying that under the existing law covering black cabs, only three drivers have required exemption. That is entirely proper and it reflects the scale of the problem that might be encountered if the Bill is passed. The problem will not be large, although I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon that that in no way absolves the House from the obligation to get the provision right.
	I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, whose introduction of the amendments was somewhat qualified, and to the extensive discussion of the whole group of amendments led by the hon. Member for Hendon. After listening to the latter building up his argument, the nearest analogy I could think of was a famous story of an Australian outback farmer in the 1920s. He ordered a new Rolls-Royce—no doubt, he farmed on a fairly large scale—and the company was intrigued by his special emphasis on having a glass partition; it was the main selling proposition. When asked delicately why the partition was so important, he is reputed to have replied, "Because it stops the sheep licking the back of my neck when I'm driving." With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I felt that the debate was starting to stray into that sort of territory. Of course there will be hard cases, but he is a lawyer, unlike me, so he knows that hard cases make bad law. We have to think about them, but we also have to deal with them and get past them.
	Broadly speaking, the exchanges, all of which were quite proper, struck a fair balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, we are in the business of seeking a balance. He questioned whether, under amendment No. 8, it would be possible to put qualifications on the exemption certificate. When I revisited the provision, it looked to me as though we had a prescription for either the vehicle or the driver to be exempted, and I thought that that would probably cover all possible cases. No doubt the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), will be able to explain that point.
	The subject with which the Bill deals invites a jocular attitude, and that has been the mood in the Chamber today, but a serious point has been made that whereas guide dogs normally behave in an exemplary manner, are trained to do so and can be proved to have been trained to do so, a bigger concern for cabbies and operators of private hire vehicles is the behaviour of the human cargo and the various things that can go wrong. I suspect that the many hon. Members who are avid readers of The Economist noticed the story in the American section last week about the United States hot dog eating competition. It was won—by a considerable margin—by a Japanese gentleman, who was, in the words of the newspaper, able only narrowly to avoid a "Roman incident".
	I shall not dwell on that subject at length, but I am reminded of one of my modest attainments in Parliament. It is no great confession, but in the Jubilee Room some years ago I won the national biscuit dunking competition. I hasten to add, lest there be any question of interest, that I did it for charity and the only prize was the award of a golden biscuit. The runner-up, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), was greatly distressed and was heard to say under his breath, "I'd like a blood test, please." On the whole, that was rather odd given that neither of us is a member of the union Amicus. Let me conclude that point by mentioning the fact that after my triumph, I was invited to comment in a television interview and in the best style of "Match of the Day" described myself as feeling as sick as a parrot.
	People can be sick in taxis, as can dogs. What we must not do is use the pretext of an extremely rare occurrence to scupper, dilute or destroy this excellent measure. To the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) I say that I regard the Bill as a parallel to that other legislative brick that we laid this year, the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill. I very much hope that the Bill before us today will succeed as well.
	I want to touch on the case for any amendments of comfort along the lines of those proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon. We want to carry the minicab trade with us and meet its reasonable concerns, ensuring that people are not treated unfairly when they comply with the law. I believe that the Bill does that. Legislation prescribes that something should happen, and we should not need further legislation to absolve people who have found an excuse for it not to happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, it is a matter of striking the right balance. Having listened carefully to the debate, I judge that we have got the balance about right.
	There is a powerful business case for this, too. If cab drivers can be shown to be friendly and welcoming to people with assistance dogs, that is good business. There may be cases in which that cannot happen, and that is what the legislation is trying to pick up on, but to remove oneself from a significant section of the market, with perhaps 2 million visually impaired people in this country and a large number who may require assistance, though not all from dogs, would be a foolish business decision.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has, as usual, made a thoughtful and intelligent contribution to our debate. His last point applies to regulation in general. Many people see regulation as damaging to business, but often it can promote business, creating a market and encouraging people to get involved. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a business case, although that may not be the main point. The overriding case for the Bill is the need to end the discrimination that blind, deaf and other disabled people have experienced.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) did the House a great service by bringing out some of the key underlying issues that faced those who drafted the Bill. It is worth pointing out, though, that the dogs in question are all exceptionally well trained. We have missed that point up to now. My partner's family have a dog called Sweep who was rejected as a guide dog because he was not up to the mark. He had been chosen as a puppy and had gone through the initial training, but had been unable to control himself—he had been too "boisterous", to use the word in amendment No. 2.
	I want to draw the attention of the House to Canine Partners for Independence. Hon. Members are probably aware of Guide Dogs for the Blind and of the increasing number of dogs being used to assist people with hearing impairments, but they may not know of the CPI, which is a small but growing charity that shows how dogs can help people with disabilities in amazing ways: they can do shopping, load dirty washing into machines, open doors and call for lifts.
	I want to focus on dogs calling for lifts. Dogs are trained to do that, which may go some way towards answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who questioned the intentions underlying amendment No. 2. It might be possible for the operator to know whether the dog is in an excitable state when the lift is called for. To be serious, however, I would imagine that the operator receiving the call would have been trained to understand and accept such calls.

Stephen McCabe: What exactly happens when a dog calls for a lift? I find that quite amazing.

Edward Davey: I would love to be able to explain that in detail, but to save time I refer the hon. Gentleman to the website of Canine Partners for Independence. It may be that the hon. Member for Hendon will be able to elucidate further.

Andrew Dismore: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of dogs calling for a lift, does he mean an elevator or a vehicle?

Edward Davey: I was referring to a vehicle, but I am sure that dogs could call for an elevator as well.
	I want to take the House through some of the processes that the CPI uses to train dogs. First, there is a selection at the puppy stage. Only puppies that show an aptitude for the tasks are chosen. The chosen puppies are placed with families that bring them up in a certain way for the first 12 months. Then, the one-year-old dog gets six months of advanced training in a training centre. That is a huge investment, and shows how seriously the CPI takes the job of training.
	Afterwards, the disabled person and the dog are matched in a very careful and sensitive way. There is a two-week residential training course during which they get to know each other and learn the various commands, followed by a graduation ceremony if the dog is successful. Even after graduation, there is follow-up care and supervision. All that training has not been mentioned in the debate so far.
	All of that underlines the most worrying aspects of new clause 1 and amendment No. 2.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making a constructive contribution, and setting the debate in the right context. Dogs for the Disabled is located just inside my constituency, near Banbury, so I can echo the experience that he has just outlined.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that. I do not know the dogs myself, but my constituent Pauline Hamblin works for the CPI and brought its good works to my attention. She was a great help in preparing for this debate.
	The new clause and the amendments are not necessary. We should bear in mind the fact that the dogs are exceptionally well trained. The Bill should go onto the statute book as it stands.

David Jamieson: Had the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) been here, he would have been a little surprised at the slightly surreal contribution of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who moved new clause 1 and proceeded to speak against it forcefully. I am in danger of doing the opposite—of opposing the new clause but speaking for it.
	You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a story to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred. During a debate on education, I was an illustrious member of the Whips Office, sitting where the Government Whip is sitting now. The dog belonging to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) unfortunately misbehaved by doing one of the things to which new clause 1 refers. At one point, it was suggested that we adjourn the House for a moment so that a clean-up might be effected; indeed, I believe that you were in the Chair at the time. However, in the end it was I who crawled along the floor with a cloth and performed the clean-up.
	There was a sequel to that. Shortly afterwards, in September, I went on a parliamentary trip to the United States. The senator who introduced the British parliamentarians and said a little about their backgrounds eventually got to me. He looked down at his notes and said, "Mr. Jamieson, you're the guy who cleaned up the dog puke." So my claim to fame in this House is that I was the guy who cleaned up after my right hon. Friend's dog. One reason to smile on that occasion was that the dog threw up just as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) got to his feet to make his speech.
	However, there is a serious point here. It is important that other people respect dogs that are kept for that purpose, and do not feed them without the knowledge of their owner. Indeed, that was the problem that gave rise to the incident to which I referred.

David Wilshire: There is a further important and serious point that needs to be made. As a former Whip, the Minister will be aware that colleagues consider a Whip's job as involving all sorts of nasty things. He has just demonstrated that the reality of the Whip's job is to crawl around on the ground doing strange things. Is that not the truth of the job that he used to do, and which I now do?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps reflecting his own role, rather than the one that I had. [Laughter.]
	The Government believe that new clause 1 is unnecessary and we will not support it. It adds nothing to the general law of tort—a point on which there has been an interesting debate today. If a person or an animal over which he has control causes damage, a tort arises and the owner of the damaged property can sue for the cost of repairing or replacing it. That applies equally to a disabled person with an assistance dog and to someone with a pet dog.

Chris Pond: Does the Minister agree that new clause 1 is not only unnecessary but could also prove dangerous? I know that he, like other hon. Members, has visited Gravesham. He will have seen that the cabs in that town are in pristine condition, but that is not always the case throughout the country. Perhaps some unscrupulous cab owners might use the new clause to get such passengers to pay for a clean-up that in reality had nothing to do with their dog. Indeed, such passengers would be unable to ascertain the truth of the situation.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is a further reason to oppose the new clause.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire—in whose name new clause 1 has been tabled—may have thought that, by imposing an obligation on the driver of such a vehicle to carry a dog, the Bill will remove the driver's normal private law rights to sue for damage caused by passengers and their animals. However, we believe that the general law covering such circumstances does not remove such rights. I should also point out that new clause 1 is flawed, in that it does not state to whom the payment should be made, or by whom it would be recoverable.

Tim Boswell: Am I right in thinking that the driver's public law obligations in relation to the safety of his vehicle, for example, are not removed, and that if there is ever any doubt as to whether he should carry on driving, he would be fully within his rights to stop? Is not the provision concerned solely with discrimination, in terms of admitting a guide dog to a vehicle?

David Jamieson: Yes, drivers are always responsible for conducting their vehicles safely and properly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made a brief and succinct contribution on amendment No. 2. In our view, the Bill already offers sufficient protection for drivers. It does not force drivers to carry dogs in circumstances in which they would normally refuse. For example, as was pointed out, they are not obliged to take a drunk or disorderly person, with or without a dog. Equally, they can refuse to take an unruly assistance dog. Refusing to take an unruly dog is not the same thing as refusing to take a fare. Because the passenger in question would be accompanied by an assistance dog, no offence would be committed in such circumstances.
	If the Bill succeeds—it is my earnest hope that it should—we intend to issue full guidance to private hire operators and drivers, as well as disabled users, just as we have done in respect of taxis. The guidance will cover all the issues raised, and we believe that that will be more than sufficient to reassure people. In any event, I think it highly unlikely that the circumstances envisaged in the amendment will arise. No similar provision for taxis is made in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so the amendment would create an imbalance in legislation. Of course, it may be felt that that is not good enough, and that we should look at the provisions afresh. In support of our position, I should point out that since April last year—when the provisions in section 37 began to apply to taxis—we are unaware of any cases of problems arising through the behaviour of assistance dogs.

Edward Davey: The Minister said that the Government will issue guidelines to the industry and to other affected parties, but in his list he did not mention licensing authorities. Can he reassure the House that guidelines will be issued to licensing authorities, because that would deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) rightly raised?

David Jamieson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all parties involved, including licensing authorities, will be issued guidelines.
	As has been pointed out, the dogs in question are highly trained animals. It is therefore unsurprising that we intend that the provision cover only dogs trained by recognised bodies that are to be prescribed in regulations. It is therefore highly unlikely that they would behave in such a manner. If they did, they would be of little assistance to their owners.
	I hope that I have given the House an explanation of why the Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary.

Andrew Dismore: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but that is not in the Bill. It refers to prescribed charities in certain circumstances, but does not mention assistance dogs for the deaf or blind. That is a genuine drafting problem. If what my hon. Friend says is correct, so be it, but that does not appear in the Bill, except in connection with assistance dogs for people with other disabilities.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend has made his point, as indeed he did in his previous contribution. Notwithstanding that, we hope that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.

Neil Gerrard: This has been an interesting debate, and I shall try not to repeat what has already been covered by the speeches from both Front Bench spokesmen, because they have already dealt with some of the points that came up. Sometimes during the debate it has felt as if we were discussing something totally new that had never been thought of before, and that none of the potential problems had ever been considered. On the contrary, since the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed we have had legislation imposing exactly the same obligations on the licensed cab trade as are proposed in the Bill. A great many local authorities already include the provisions in the Bill in their licensing requirements for private hire vehicles, and require drivers to take guide dogs.
	The problem is not that that does not happen, but that it does not happen everywhere. There is inconsistency between one local authority area and another, so that people with assistance dogs, especially when they are travelling away from home, cannot be confident that they will be able to use private hire vehicles. The problem is the lack of consistency across the country.
	The attempts that we have heard to construct convoluted scenarios for the problems that guide dogs might cause ignore the fact that we already have experience, and we are not dealing with something completely new. We may be spending too much time trying to find all the extreme examples of things that might go wrong with the Bill, when the fundamental issue is really very simple: rights of access for people with disabilities.

Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) perfectly illustrated the fact that the only way one can tell whether a minicab driver has run over a assistance dog or a lawyer is that there would be skid marks in front of the assistance dog?

Neil Gerrard: It would be dangerous for me to go down that road now, because I do not wish to upset the lawyers, especially while we are still debating the new clause and the amendments.
	I want to address some of the issues related to new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 concerning damage, and dogs being excitable. A lot of them have already been covered; the legal advice that I have been given makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent someone from suing now, and the Minister agrees. Again, we have the benefit of the experience of the licensing authorities that already make that requirement. In the very unlikely event of a guide dog causing damage, there is nothing to stop people suing now, so it is unnecessary to add the provisions to the Bill.
	Clearly it is important that excitable dogs should not make cars dangerous to drive, but as several hon. Members have already explained, the very nature of assistance dogs makes that scenario highly unlikely. We should also remember that private hire vehicle drivers are used to dealing with difficult situations and customers. Unfortunately for them, that is part of the business.
	It is important to remember what the Bill actually says. There have been several references to the idea that a passenger would have the right to insist on being taken. That is not strictly accurate, because clause 1 says that it will be an offence for the operator or the driver to refuse a booking for the sole reason that the person is accompanied by an assistance dog. That does not mean that someone with an assistance dog is in a privileged position compared with any other person trying to make a booking. The Bill simply brings parity.
	There is nothing to say that a private hire vehicle driver has to accept every booking offered. If a driver is offered a booking to the airport and he does not want to drive all the way across London to Heathrow, he can say no. The Bill will simply stop discrimination. The driver and the operator will not be able to say, "I'm not going to take you because you've got your assistance dog with you." If, in the very unlikely circumstance that the driver turned up for a booking and the dog was unruly or the passenger drunk or abusive, there would not be the slightest problem if the driver refused to take them for that reason. It is an offence only if he refuses to take them because the dog is an assistance dog.
	The definition of an assistance dog is the same as in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It works for black cabs, and I see no reason why it should not work for private hire vehicles. The very detailed guidance issued by the Department to drivers, people with disabilities and the local authorities, which are the licensing authorities, covers the definitions clearly.
	It would be a mistake to look for additional reasons for exemption. A number of issues were raised in relation to exemptions, such as phobias and medical grounds. The guidance issued under section 37 of the 1995 Act to licensing authorities for black cabs specifically refers to drivers having severe asthma aggravated by contact with dogs, allergies or acute phobias. Those are given in the guidance as the sort of reasons that would allow a driver to apply for exemption. The guidance also makes it clear that the driver would be expected to produce to the licensing authority the medical evidence required for such an exemption.
	People have asked what is the point of the provision on having regard to the physical characteristics of the private hire vehicle in proposed section 37A(6). This relates to the driver's medical condition. As with black cabs, if a driver claims that he cannot have a dog in his cab because he is allergic, questions about the physical characteristics of the vehicle become relevant when considering whether a medical exemption should be granted. Is there a partition between the passengers and the driver, for example? Do the physical characteristics of the vehicle have a bearing on the medical condition that is being claimed?
	We should get the scale of the exemption into perspective. I believe that so far three exemptions have been granted to drivers of black cabs. This will not be a huge problem—vast numbers of people will not suddenly require exemptions. We should recognise the scale of the problem and approach it with common sense. It affects about 5,000 to 6,000 people who own guide dogs—they are the people who suffer problems, not the drivers. However, there are about 150,000 drivers, and the average driver will never have to deal with this situation, or only extremely rarely.
	I suspect that anyone who uses private hire vehicles, as I quite frequently do in my constituency, will soon realise which firms are reliable and which give a good service and they will use them. People who own assistance dogs will quickly learn where to go, and a pattern will emerge. I am sure that this already happens in areas that have licensing arrangements. Drivers who are happy to take assistance dogs will become known to customers and will frequently take them, while others will hardly notice any difference.
	Some of the amendments are unnecessary, as they cover points that are already dealt with in the Bill; for example, the ability of a driver or operator to sue for damage if necessary, or to refuse carriage provided that the reason for refusal is not simply the assistance dog—he can certainly refuse to take an abusive or unruly passenger whether or not they are using an assistance dog.
	Some of the points raised about exemptions and definitions may not be included in the Bill, but they are already in practice under section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act and provisions for black cabs. We are familiar with them. We do not want to introduce inconsistency; what works for black cabs should work perfectly well for private hire vehicles and it makes sense to amend the Act in the form currently taken by the Bill to achieve that consistency for different classes of vehicle, rather than to make that aspect more complex. We should not look for problems that do not exist.

Sydney Chapman: I have listened with interest and at length to the debate. It is good that we have held the debate because it has brought out certain problems that might be faced. However, I am entirely persuaded by the hon. Gentleman and the eloquence on both sides of the House, not least from the Front-Bench speakers, so I shall withdraw the new clause. I understand that if that is accepted by the House, amendment No. 2 will fall so I shall be in the happy position of knowing that a dropped apostrophe and a split infinitive are no longer in danger of getting on to our statute book.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
	'(2) In Schedule 8 to the 1995 Act (modification of Act in its application to Northern Ireland) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 21—
	"21A (1) In section 37A(5) and (6) for 'licensing authority' substitute 'Department of the Environment'.
	(2) In section 37A(9) for the definitions of 'driver', 'licensing authority', 'operator' and 'private hire vehicle' substitute—
	'"driver"' means a person who holds a taxi driver's licence under Article 79A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (SI 1981/154 (NI 1));
	"operator" means a person who in the course of a business makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle;
	"private hire vehicle" means a vehicle which—
	(a) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and
	(b) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to carry passengers for hire (but not to stand or ply for hire).'.".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, after "(2AB)", insert—
	'Regulations under subsection (2AA) above may provide for the creation of offences and for making offenders liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(2AC)'.

Neil Gerrard: The amendments are straightforward but important. As originally drafted, the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland and Scotland because of their devolved powers. However, it is of some importance that we try to extend the provisions across the whole United Kingdom.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly could have dealt with this matter but it would have taken some time. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, the Assembly unanimously agreed to urge us to amend the Bill so that its provisions would extend to Northern Ireland. That is the purpose of amendment No. 3. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment will make detailed regulations for Northern Ireland so that there are parallels between licensed taxis and private hire vehicles.
	Amendment No. 1 deals with Scotland and will correct a drafting error made in Committee when a clause was inserted to extend the Bill's provisions to Scotland but, unfortunately, omitted anything that made it an offence in Scotland not to comply with the provisions. We thus had the rather odd situation whereby a Bill applied to Scotland but if people chose not to obey it nothing would have happened. Amendment No. 1 puts that straight and ensures that, as well as the Bill applying to Scotland, there is also an offence for not complying with its provisions.
	I hope that the House will support the amendments, which will give us consistency throughout the whole UK.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend has spoken to the amendments very effectively.
	Amendment No. 1 is necessary to ensure that Scotland has parity with England and Wales in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, which now extends to Scotland, amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and places a duty on drivers of private hire cars to take guide dogs and other assistance dogs and not to make a charge for doing so.
	Enforcement measures are an integral part of the process and, as the Bill is drafted, there is now some doubt about the ability of Scottish local authorities and police to enforce its provisions. They felt that the Bill needed to be corrected and express provision made for this purpose; to do otherwise would render the Bill impotent in Scotland.
	The amendment replicates the current offence relating to the duty placed on taxi drivers in Scotland, the penalty for which, on summary conviction, is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	The Bill has been extended to Scotland and I am pleased to say that amendment No. 3 has been tabled to ensure that it extends to Northern Ireland as well. I am certain that all of us in the House would agree that disabled people who rely on assistance dogs in any part of the United Kingdom should enjoy the same rights as everyone else when they travel by private hire vehicle, and the Bill will now secure those rights.
	At this point it may be appropriate for me to state, on behalf of the Government, the position of the Bill with regard to the European convention on human rights. It is the view of the Government that the provisions of the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 19, after "(2AB)", insert—
	'Regulations under subsection (2AA) above may provide for the creation of offences and for making offenders liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(2AC)'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Short title, commencement and extent

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 39, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
	'within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent'.

Andrew Dismore: I shall be relatively brief. Both the amendments relate to the commencement provisions, which I am always anxious to test. It is simply an opportunity for the Minister to say when he expects to be able to bring the legislation into force. At the same time, perhaps he will say when the guidance that he has spoken of will be promulgated.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief. I understand my hon. Friend's wish to be certain about the dates on which the Bill's provisions come into effect, but there is a problem with putting a specific time scale in the Bill. There are still some issues to be sorted out in relation to London. Transport for London recently launched its follow-up consultation on the licensing of drivers, which should probably come into force early next year. However, there is a further issue in London—licensing of vehicles—on which there is still uncertainty as to timing. It would not help for the Bill to state a time scale that perhaps could not be met; further primary legislation would be needed to put things right. With the Bill in its present form, timing can be dealt with by regulation. I am also anxious to make it possible for the Bill to be brought into force in different parts of the country at different dates, without requiring everyone else to wait for everything to be sorted out in London.
	Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, obviously, I personally want the Bill to come into operation as soon as possible, and we need the practical flexibility with the timing that it contains at the moment.

David Jamieson: My hon. Friends have effectively made the point, but may I say on behalf of the Government that we intend to introduce the provision as quickly as possible? The Bill provides different commencement dates for different areas of the country—for example, in London—so we felt it inappropriate to set a specific time scale for the whole country.

Andrew Dismore: I have listened to what my hon. Friends have said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I shall be brief because this morning's debate has ranged over most of the issues that the Bill covers, but I want to put on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have supported the Bill. Since first introducing it, I have received support from hon. Members from all parties, and I am extremely grateful to them for their support. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials for their help, without which I am sure I would not have been able to deal with all the required drafting details. I also thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, which, again, have been very supportive in getting the Bill drafted and, I hope, accepted by the House.
	Some significant changes have been made in the Bill since Second Reading. On Second Reading, clear arguments were made about the principles and the need for a Bill to bring consistency across the country and between black cabs and private hire vehicles. In Committee, we had to make sure that the Bill would work, which required some changes to ensure that operators, as well as drivers, were covered. Of course, amendments were made on Report to extend the provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	I am pleased that we have been able to make progress. As I said in an earlier contribution, the Bill will not affect huge numbers of people. It will affect perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 people, but it will be enormously important to those people. People who rely on assistance dogs rely much more on private hire vehicles and taxis than the average person does, and it is enormously important for them to be able to travel freely and to know that they can take their dogs with them. So the Bill makes a valuable contribution to helping people with assistance dogs in their daily lives. I am sure that that is the view of hon. Members in all parties, and I am grateful to them for all their support, which has enabled me to reach this point with the Bill.

Tim Boswell: I simply wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his Bill and to echo his thanks to all those people who have been involved in its preparation and consideration in the House, including the officials, the representatives of the disability organisations and those hon. Members who have participated. We wish the Bill every success as it passes to another place.

Tom Clarke: I join the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and, I think, the whole House in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on the excellent Bill that he has piloted through the House. We all hope that it will achieve its Third Reading and, of course, that it will be enacted in due course.
	I wish to express two main thoughts in this brief contribution. The first is about the empiricism of the House as we develop legislation. The second is about the sheer persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who deserves to be congratulated most warmly on seizing the opportunity that this Bill offers to extend rights to people who would otherwise be denied them.
	On the point about empiricism, my hon. Friend will recall—as he was proactive in the House when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced—that, as I said earlier, there was no intention to introduce transport provisions into it, even on its Second Reading. In due course, some of us, including my hon. Friend, pushed hard. Eventually, we achieved provisions on access to stations, to trains, to bus terminuses, to buses, to taxis, but not, alas, to private hire vehicles, which has been achieved today. I think that that shows the House at its best. It shows that the sort of determination that we have seen from my hon. Friend succeeds.
	I thank my hon. Friend, too, for the sensitivity with which he has extended the Bill to Scotland. People in Scotland do not like paying out all that much, but the fines are perfectly agreeable and should, of course, be consistent with those in the rest of the UK. It is right that we should work in partnership, as we are doing, with the Scottish Parliament, which in due course will introduce a statutory instrument putting the Bill into effect in Scotland.
	For all those reasons, I say again that my hon. Friend has done a fine job in the reforming tradition of one of his greatest predecessors, Clement Attlee, and long may he continue to do it. I know that people in disability organisations are profoundly supportive of what he is doing today. We thank him sincerely for his excellent efforts.

David Heath: I join other Members who have warmly congratulated the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). We can be as brief as we need to be on Third Reading, as we explored the issues in Committee.
	This is a good Bill. It will not make a difference to a huge number of people, as the hon. Gentleman said, but for those whom it does affect, it will make a substantial difference, across the country, to their way of life. The Bill has not been imposed on Scotland and Northern Ireland but it has been welcomed and embraced by people there who wish to be involved with it.
	As some Members know, I chair the all-party group on eye health and visual impairment. We take no credit for the hon. Gentleman's initiative in the Bill or for that of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) in her parallel measure, the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill, which I mentioned earlier. Perhaps, however, at long last, the House is taking seriously issues of visual impairment, and we are able to provide more focus on an area that has been neglected for too long. Two major stepping stones have been put in place in this Session, and I hope that both Bills succeed in another place. The House, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Minister and all involved with the Bill are to be congratulated on what they have done.

Chris Pond: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on what is a very significant contribution. If I may, I would like to pay tribute to organisations such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Assistance Dogs UK, whose briefings have informed our debate effectively.
	Clearly, private hire vehicles are an important part of the network of accessible transport for people with disabilities. For some of those people, in some areas, they constitute the only available form of transport. If I may, I want to share with the House the experiences of one of my constituents, who is also a friend, Mr. Wayne Busbridge of Ifield road, Gravesend. He is visually impaired and has an assistance dog. In my discussions with him in preparation for this morning's debate, he told me:
	"The biggest fear is being stranded in a town you don't know, feeling vulnerable and insecure."
	He said that some private hire vehicles even try to charge him for his dog—as much as £10 a time. He said that the worst experience is turning up at taxi ranks and drivers refusing to take him, even when there are no other taxis at the rank and it is clear that he is being left stranded. He has talked about his experiences in a strange town or city. If a taxi drives away, he has no other means of getting to where he needs to go. He feels vulnerable and often waits 40 or 50 minutes while the telephone operators in cab firms search for someone who is willing to take him. It is important that the Bill has its Third Reading.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for his persistence. He assisted the debate considerably, and I am sure that the whole House was saddened to hear of the demise of Griswald, which we hope was not too closely associated with the damage that she did to the upholstery of my hon. Friend's car.
	I confess that I am a dog owner. I was feeling rather edgy in our earlier discussions in case the organisers of the Westminster dog of the year competition were listening. In last year's competition, my dog, Camden, was guilty of many of the activities listed in new clause 1, and was so in close proximity of the judges. I had to explain that he was very obedient but hard of hearing, and that I had been telling him to sit.
	I have shared the experiences of my hon. Friend the Minister, and we must be clear that such embarrassments do not normally afflict only the owners of assistance dogs. As other hon. Members have said, they are highly trained dogs and it is unlikely that they will cause difficulties in, or damage to, private hire vehicles. We must not allow discrimination to hide behind the suggestion that they would cause such damage.
	It is important that the Bill brings private hire vehicles into line with taxi cabs, removes the inconsistencies that apply around the country and makes sure that people such as my constituent Mr. Busbridge no longer have to wait at taxi ranks in fear, feeling vulnerable and facing the indignity of not being able to get to where they want to go.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on introducing the Bill. It shows that we recognise and respect the needs of everyone in society. I am sure that the wonderful people who run and attend the Phoenix club in Castle Point will be delighted that the Bill is likely to make progress today. They will welcome it as an excellent Bill that will help some of them. Having said that, I hope that we can move on quickly so that we can discuss the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill and help pensioners equally.

Andrew Dismore: I shall be brief in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on piloting his Bill through the House, particularly as it is a ten-minute Bill. I know from my experience that trying to make law with a ten-minute Bill is very difficult.
	In the earlier debates, I raised a series of reservations and concerns about the Bill, and my hon. Friend amply dealt with them in his reply. I now wish to be much more positive about the Bill. It is important to take forward the rights that it contains, given the situation in my constituency in outer London. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) will share the view that, in outer London, the availability of black cabs is less than in central London, so people rely much more heavily on minicab services.
	My constituents who depend on assistance dogs have told me that they have been refused the use of minicabs. I have taken the issue up with the minicab company concerned, which has taken steps to ensure that the problem did not reoccur. I am pleased to say that, when problems have arisen in my constituency, we have been able to deal with them amicably and on a voluntary basis. Nevertheless, I fully accept that that is not necessarily the position throughout the country. I therefore welcome the Bill as an important step in meeting the needs of those who depend on assistance dogs. I fully accept that those dogs are always well behaved and well trained. They provide a very valuable service.

Edward Davey: In the spirit of joining the congratulations that have been offered to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I would say that the way in which he has conducted the passage of the Bill throughout its stages has been exemplary, and has shown the private Members' Bill process at its very best. I was delighted when the hon. Gentleman asked me to be a co-sponsor, and I thank him for that. I have been appreciative of both the communication that I have had with him on the Bill and the communication that I have had with various charities, in particular the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
	At an earlier stage in our proceedings, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he said that we were not giving any extra privileges to the people who will benefit from the Bill. He then said that we were giving them the chance to enjoy the access to transport and the freedom of movement that others enjoy. That is not a large thing to ask. Indeed, it is a small thing. It is good that there is great support for the Bill from Members on both sides of the House. We all have been seeking to remove inconsistencies and discrimination, and more importantly, to increase independence. I think that the Bill does these things well.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill will affect only 5,000 to 6,000 people, but that it was important that they had their rights recognised. From the information that I have received from the various charities involved, I can add that it is not a small matter for the 5,000 to 6,000. It can literally change their lives, so it is very significant for them.
	In a recent survey carried out by the RNIB, it was found that one in seven of a sample of 500 visually impaired people said that they regularly used regulated taxis and private hire vehicles, and that they were the most frequently used forms of transport. One in five stated that he or she used taxis or private hire vehicles once a week. The people that the hon. Gentleman was talking about are frequent users of these vehicles. That is why the Bill is so much needed to help them.
	It has been interesting throughout our debates to note the increasing range of activities in which dogs can help human beings. That suggests that this will not be the only time that we see legislation of this sort brought before us. I hope that policy changes will be made by the Government as well. We should utilise the amazing skills and attributes that dogs have. In my experience and that of my constituents, they can completely change the lives of people with physical impairments. I hope that through the experience of the Bill, the House will have heard and acknowledged these benefits and will return on future occasions to improve legislation still further. I very much support the Bill on its Third Reading.

Roger Casale: At the conclusion of our proceedings, I want to add my welcome for this measure, which I know will be extremely welcome to my constituents. I spoke once again this morning to the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind and the Guardian centre for the blind, which are delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has introduced the Bill. It is excellent that it has enjoyed so much cross-party support. Sometimes that does not bode well for a Bill, but I think that this Bill is an exception. It is clear that we are bringing common sense into law.
	The Bill is important because, as we have heard, the present lacuna in legislation causes great inconvenience to people who use guide dogs. Many measures discriminate against people with a particular disability, but this lacuna adds insult to injury. We have heard the suggestion that people are unable to look after their guide dogs, for example. That causes further offence. I know from my contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and having followed his career over many years, that he is inspired by his longstanding commitment to extend the rights of disabled people. I congratulate him on this measure. When disabled people are discriminated against, it is an injury and an insult to those people and to us all.
	I am also delighted that the Bill is progressing because it is an important development in relation to the licensing of minicabs generally, which has been much debated in recent years. When I spoke in the debate in this House in 1998 on the licensing of minicabs, I said that I was not able to come to the House by minicab and I wished that I could say that it was because I was unable to find one that was licensed. Any humour in that remark would be removed by the fact that if I had been blind and the owner of a guide dog, even had I been able to find a licensed minicab I might not have been able to avail myself of it because it would not have accepted me with the dog.
	In my discussions this morning with the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind, I was told that it is very difficult for their clients to find minicab firms that take guide dogs. Indeed, only one company in Merton—Olympic Cars—does so, when estate cars are available. Eighteen months ago, the centre wrote to all the minicab firms in the local area asking them if they would carry people who had assistance dogs with them, and not a single one replied.
	That brings me to my final point about why I welcome the Bill. It is often said in the House that we have too many regulations, but we need them if people's rights are to be properly respected. The Bill is a good instance of that. It builds on earlier measures on the licensing of minicab operators, drivers and vehicles. That is especially important in London, where many abuses take place. We cannot simply rely on the goodwill of the operators to comply with the perfectly reasonable requirement that they should accord the same service to people with assistance dogs as to everybody else.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, which will be very much welcomed in my constituency. I am pleased that it has received all-party support and wish it well on its further passage through the House.

David Jamieson: It is considerable pleasure for me to be able to wind up the debate. Many thousands of disabled people rely on private hire vehicles or minicabs for their day-to-day mobility. In a recent MORI poll produced for the Department for Transport's disabled persons transport advisory committee, 40 per cent. of respondents reported that they had used taxis or minicabs at least once a month, and the figure was even higher for visually impaired people, 53 per cent. of whom had made similar use of those modes of travel. It is therefore clear that minicabs are a vital part of the transport mix for many disabled people, so it is intolerable that people who use assistance dogs often face a barrier to travel not because the vehicle is inaccessible, but because the attitude of the driver or operator of the service is at best indifferent to their needs or at worst downright discriminatory towards them. By introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has ensured that such attitudes will no longer be tolerated in the trade and that the way will be clear for disabled people to go about their daily business in the confidence that they will not be refused a minicab because they are travelling with a well-trained assistance dog.
	I pay tribute to Guide Dogs for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which have made continuing representations on the matter not only to us but to those in local government with responsibility for private hire vehicles. I pay a warm tribute to the officials in my Department, who have worked extremely hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to get the Bill securely on to the statute book, or at least to assist it in its progress through the House.
	I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Like many hon. Members, he has a long and distinguished record on disability issues. However, today we must offer the warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow not just on introducing the Bill, but on the way in which he has steered it through Parliament. As one of the few hon. Members who has managed to get a private Member's Bill through all its stages, I know what a difficult and arduous task that is.
	My hon. Friend has placed his name on a piece of legislation that in some small way will improve people's lives for years to come. There is nothing better that a Member of Parliament could do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Commonwealth Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill, whose purpose is twofold: to sever the Government's statutory link with the Commonwealth Institute and to make provision for recognition in the United Kingdom of the admission to the Commonwealth of Cameroon and Mozambique, which happened in 1995. Conservative Members fully support this small but important Bill. In doing so, we join the Leader of the House who said at col. 427 of Hansard yesterday that the Government fully support the measures.
	In 2000 the Commonwealth Institute was established as an independent charitable company and links to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were severed. The management of the Commonwealth Institute is no longer under the direct control of the FCO. We have always supported severing the links with the Foreign Office and giving the institute greater independence to promote learning across the Commonwealth. The Bill repeals the statutes that provide for the management of the Commonwealth Institute as a Government-supported body. More importantly, it will ensure the transfer of the institute's trust fund, which is approximately £50,000, from the trustees to the institute.
	The second part of the Bill enables us fully to recognise Cameroon and Mozambique. They were admitted to the Commonwealth in 1995 when my good Friend Baroness Chalker was Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth. The Bill tidies up parts of the law covering the Commonwealth. For example, it amends the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to include Cameroon and Mozambique in the definitions of "Commonwealth force" and "Commonwealth country". Other legislation is amended to ensure that the forces of Mozambique and Cameroon can be treated as visiting forces from a Commonwealth country under those statutes.

David Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: No, I am drawing my remarks to a close.
	There is nothing more to add to my comments. I hope that the Bill has a safe passage.

Andrew Dismore: I do not want to speak at length because overall I welcome the Bill. It is interesting that we are debating it when the Commonwealth games are about to commence. In addition, The Guardian today has an interesting section on the future role of the Commonwealth which raises some questions. However, I am sure we all agree that the Commonwealth is an important institution to support.
	The membership criteria for the Commonwealth were set out in the Harare declaration and reinforced in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh communiqué states:
	"to become a member of the Commonwealth, an applicant country should, as a rule, have had a constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member; . . . it should comply with Commonwealth values, principles and priorities as set out in the Harare Declaration; and . . . it should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions."
	On Second Reading, I raised the human rights record of Cameroon. I also said that a new electoral commission had been appointed and that elections would be held this year. In view of the criteria for Commonwealth membership, I remain worried about Cameroon's human rights record. There are serious tensions between Cameroon and Nigeria over the border area, which contains oil. A case is before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and we hope that it will make a ruling soon. Nigerian communities have repeatedly reported alleged attacks by Cameroon gendarmes, despite the fact that there is a case before the International Court of Justice.
	The election campaign has been marred by violence. Indeed, elections were postponed because of irregularities, intimidation and election fraud. It is interesting to note that the election, which was postponed for a week, has been challenged and that the court in Cameroon has ordered a rerun of the election in nine constituencies because of fraud. However, the Opposition parties are worried that many of their objections and allegations of fraud have not been properly investigated, although many were accepted as valid. It was argued that petitions were filed too late or that there was a lack of sufficient evidence. The latter is a serious problem.
	The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture states that torture is commonplace in Cameroon. Its report refers to serious abuses. Amnesty International's 2002 report, which covers January to December 2001, relates some horrific examples of human rights abuses and the lack of the rule of law. They include intimidation and attacks on the defenders of human rights and journalists. I shall not go into that in detail, but the report is available in the Library.
	I remain worried that Cameroon's record does not fulfil the high standards that we should expect from a member of the Commonwealth.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that we need to strengthen the monitoring elements in the Commonwealth so that we can be sure that they are ever vigilant not only of new but of existing members?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to oppose Cameroon's membership of the Commonwealth, but if it is part of that organisation, it is incumbent on Commonwealth institutions to do all that we can to help Cameroon to improve its democratic and human rights records.
	Mozambique has proved a success story. Although the Amnesty International report raises questions about political abuses, it is not as damning as the information on Cameroon. For example, in Mozambique, the death penalty has been abolished and police officers have been dismissed and have faced prosecution for abuses. Progress has therefore been made in Mozambique. Arms have also been handed in. A programme that was backed by Christian Aid destroyed more than 100,000 guns, grenades and rocket launchers.
	However, Mozambique faces serious economic challenges because of the floods. I am pleased that efforts have been made through the African Development bank to build dams to control that problem. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for food aid. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say what the Government are doing to help with prompt action on the African famine through the Commonwealth and by ourselves. The United States has already begun to tackle that.

Bob Spink: On the subject of human rights and aid, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be appropriate if the Government were to adopt a policy of smart aid, whereby the delivery of non-humanitarian, non-NGO aid is linked to the development of good governance and human rights?

Andrew Dismore: I agree, and I hope that we shall start to develop such a policy. In The Sunday Telegraph on 7 April, there was an interesting article about the fact that Mozambique is welcoming refugee farmers from Zimbabwe and helping them to re-establish themselves.
	Both Mozambique and Cameroon are welcome. Despite all the serious challenges it faces, Mozambique is making a lot of progress with the assistance of the Commonwealth and other countries, and I hope that we will start to see better progress in Cameroon.

David Heath: I shall be extremely brief—in fact, if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) had been willing, I would have preferred to intervene on her than to make a speech. I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to other hon. Members, but I must briefly leave the Chamber at 1 o'clock. I hope that I will not miss an important part of the Minister's reply to the debate as a result.
	I broadly support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why no earlier opportunity was taken to make the statutory changes in respect of Cameroon and Mozambique. I am aware of legislation sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by the Department for International Development which could have been used as a vehicle for such minor changes to British law in respect of those two countries.
	I understand and support the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). It is important that the Commonwealth is conscious of the need to do more than require that lip service be paid to human rights, but to monitor and ensure that Commonwealth members live up to such expectations. Having said that, we should welcome the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth.
	Cameroon is part of what is normally considered francophone Africa—perhaps the Minister knows whether it is simultaneously a member of La Francophonie—but it is clear that within Africa the Commonwealth is regarded as a better vehicle for countries' aspirations to development and co-operation than La Francophonie. That is a good thing for Great Britain and its interests.
	Mozambique is in a unique position. Not only has it never been part of the British empire, but it is lusophone. It is the only lusophone member of the Commonwealth, which is an excellent thing. Mozambique's recent history is terrible. A great deal needs to be done to deal with the corrosive effects of war—especially landmines, as the Minister knows—and the after-effects of natural disasters such as floods. Offering the greatest co-operation we can to the people of Mozambique, including enabling the armed forces to take part in combined operations to deal with the natural disasters which I have no doubt will strike that country in future, is to be applauded.
	I am well aware of the work of British non-governmental associations in Mozambique. One NGO based in my constituency, Action on Disability and Development, has done a great deal of work with people in Mozambique who have been disabled, mainly by landmines. The connection between our two countries is extremely important to both of us, and I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill to cement that relationship.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to support the Bill, and to follow the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Let me express my admiration for the latter, whose range of interests and intellectual agility allowed him to move seamlessly from the behaviour of guide dogs in private hire vehicles to human rights in Cameroon and flooding in Mozambique. Those are all important matters.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly said, the Bill will regularise the legal footing of the Commonwealth Institute, an independent body that promotes learning throughout the Commonwealth, by severing the statutory link with the Government, which has become necessary because it is now an independent charitable company. The Bill also acknowledges the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth.
	The institute is a force for good in the Commonwealth. We all deeply appreciate our links with the Commonwealth and its Parliaments. I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham is a member of the international executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. This year, with the role of the Commonwealth in the golden jubilee celebrations and the Commonwealth games coming up in Manchester, we can all agree about the value of the role of the Commonwealth, in which the institute certainly plays its part.

Mike O'Brien: I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on the progress of his Bill, as well as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is standing in for him today.
	As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) said in Committee, the Government are committed to the Bill. I hope that the House will give it its full support today. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) reminded us, it has two key purposes: to repeal the statutes providing for the management of the Commonwealth Institute following its severance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's responsibility and its establishment as an independent charitable company in January 2000; and to acknowledge in United Kingdom law the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth, by amending certain Acts of Parliament to allow them to be listed and treated as Commonwealth countries.
	The Commonwealth Institute has made a distinguished contribution to British understanding and appreciation of the Commonwealth since it opened in 1962. In the late 1990s, its board of governors agreed that it should seek to change its status from a non-departmental public body responsible to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to that of an independent charitable company. We were asked to support the change. We examined it in detail and agreed to do so. We negotiated terms with the institute and drew up a severance contract that allowed it to determine its own future.
	As an independent organisation, the institute continues to develop its role to meet the challenges and demands of the Commonwealth at the start of this new century. I want to recall the impressive contribution that it made to the golden jubilee of the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. It organised the Commonwealth aspect of the bank holiday procession in the Mall, demonstrating the strength of the Commonwealth in this country and the contributions made by many of its people to our multicultural society at the start of the 21st century. As part of its contribution to the 17th Commonwealth games, which open in Manchester next Thursday, it has devised and distributed educational materials to schools throughout the country, deepening children's knowledge of the Commonwealth and its contributions.
	We wish the institute well in its new independent role. I commend the Bill to the House in respect of its repeal of legislation to allow the institute to determine its own future and how it can best contribute to the needs of the modern Commonwealth.
	Clause 2 formally ensures that the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth is properly recognised in UK legislation. I should point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that past efforts to secure the parliamentary time necessary for considering this issue have not been successful. However, thanks to the hon. Member for Havant and his Bill, we have now been able to do so, and we are grateful for that.
	Of course, the Commonwealth as a whole operates in a spirit of consensus, and all its members agreed to the admission of Mozambique and Cameroon in 1995. The House should be aware that the Bill does not imply that any further formal approval is needed for the membership of these two countries; it simply tidies up the statute book. However, their membership highlights the value of the Commonwealth as an international organisation.
	Mozambique had no traditional links with the association. Surrounded by Commonwealth countries, its membership resulted from its active and constructive engagement with problems in the then Rhodesia and South Africa. Once both countries secured majority rule, Mozambique applied to join the Commonwealth, and it was warmly welcomed. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, it has proved a committed and enthusiastic member. Its role in the Commonwealth has proved to its benefit, and to the benefit of the Commonwealth itself.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Dismore) said, Cameroon's membership of the Commonwealth has proved somewhat less encouraging. Member countries are expected to uphold the Commonwealth's principles of good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. International concern about Cameroon focuses on the need for reform in these areas. The Commonwealth has actively engaged with Cameroon since it joined in 1995, and it has looked at particular ways in which it can help Cameroon to uphold Commonwealth principles.
	In the light of last month's legislative and municipal elections, there is now even greater emphasis on the need for electoral reform. Although the official results are not yet available, we are concerned about indications of procedural irregularities and flaws. There is a real need for reform before the presidential elections in 2004. We are pleased that the Commonwealth sent observers to monitor the recent elections, and we welcome the Commonwealth Secretary-General's appointing of a special representative to Cameroon—the Canadian Christine Stewert—to support its efforts to meet the requirements of Commonwealth membership.
	In response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I should point out that—despite some concerns about Cameroon's human rights record—it is right that we welcome it into the Commonwealth, and that we seek to challenge it to improve its human rights record. As part of that exercise, we shall work with Cameroon as closely as we can—as, no doubt, will the Commonwealth as a whole.

Edward Davey: The Minister is using much of his speech to point out some of the existing problems, particularly in Cameroon. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that perhaps the best way to deal with those problems is to allow Cameroon into the Commonwealth, and to offer the support network that only the Commonwealth can provide. Can he say a little more about that, and about how soon he hopes to see those improvements? We are being asked to vote for a Bill that, in many ways, will give up one of our existing sanctions. The Minister shakes his head. He may wish to say that we will consider the case for removing Cameroon from the Commonwealth in due course, after discussing it with our partners, if it fails to meet the mark, but he should reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government will be very strict with Cameroon and Mozambique if they fail to meet the standards required.

Mike O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but let me make it clear, as I thought I already had, that the Bill does not secure the entry of Cameroon into the Commonwealth. Cameroon joined in 1995, and the Bill simply tidies up our statute book by recognising something that has already occurred.
	The Commonwealth Secretary-General has engaged, as we have, in a number of ways with Cameroon, and there have been discussions with its Government to ensure that they are aware of our concerns about a series of issues, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon touched on, and others of which we could go into, no doubt at great length, today.
	The point is whether through the Commonwealth and particularly through the appointment of Christine Stewert by the Secretary-General to enter into close discussions with Cameroon and support its membership of the Commonwealth, we can engage it in a serious discussion of how it can improve its human rights and electoral system. We are talking to Cameroon and ensuring that it is aware both of our concerns and of the fact that there are ways in which we can encourage it, and provide some practical assistance if it wishes to improve its electoral and other procedures to protect human rights better.
	We believe that membership of the Commonwealth is important to enable our partners to encourage Cameroon to meet its commitments, and we hope that the way in which we and the rest of the Commonwealth are engaging with it will start to secure some change. There is no point in making threats and wild statements. We need to engage constructively and seek to change the way in which things are done. I hope that hon. Members will feel that the Bill is worth supporting, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Anti-social behaviour declarations: criminal proceedings

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out "a year" and insert "six months".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 8, after "convictions", insert—
	'and taking into account any previous unspent convictions'.
	No. 3, in page 1, line 13, after "convictions", insert—
	'and taking into account any previous unspent convictions'.
	No. 19, in page 1, line 14, at end add
	'and
	(c) it is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again,'.
	No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
	'and specify the period of disqualification for the purposes of section 3(1)'.
	No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "behaved", insert—
	'and is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again,'.
	No. 8, in page 2, line 35, after "declaration", insert—
	'and specify the period of disqualification for the purposes of section 3(1)'.
	No. 22, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
	'(3A) A court may only make a declaration under subsection (3) above against a person over the age of 65 if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances and if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable.'.
	No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 44, at end insert—
	'(1A) In deciding to make a declaration under this Act, the court shall give due consideration to any hardship which may be inflicted on others as the consequence of disqualification of the person from benefit'.
	No. 24, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
	'(1A) Subsection (1) shall only apply after the Secretary of State has—
	(a) reviewed evidence as to the likelihood of the offender re–offending as a direct result of the benefit reduction, and
	(b) stated that, in his opinion, the benefit reduction does not increase that likelihood.'.

Andrew Dismore: Although there are quite a few amendments before the House, the issues—or at least, the issues behind the amendments in my name—are straightforward. Amendment No. 1, which is a probing amendment, raises the question of when the declarations about antisocial behaviour can be made. Clause 1(1)(b) suggests that an order cannot be made if a sentence of a year or more has been imposed. I would like the promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to explain why he has picked that period.
	If a person is in custody as a result of a sentence imposed by the court, the question of their receiving housing benefit does not arise. Whether they receive housing benefit will not make much difference to their behaviour if they are already in jail—although it may have an impact on their family.
	I could understand the position if the sentence were a community sentence. That would be clear, but I do not understand why any custodial sentence should not be a bar to the making of such an order. That needs to be considered, especially bearing in mind the qualification regulations for receiving housing benefit when people are sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point because in Committee we did not consider in great detail the length of the custodial sentence that would apply to the housing benefit sanction. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it should be six months rather than the year provided for in the Bill?

Andrew Dismore: I hit on six months simply as a probing measure—I could have chosen any period. I wanted to probe whether it was appropriate for an order to be made at all when someone is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is an expert in the operation of housing benefit in these circumstances, and I am sure that he had a reason for deciding on a year rather than any other period.

Edward Davey: May I help the hon. Gentleman? It was not the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who proposed this part of the Bill, because it was largely rewritten in Committee by the Under–Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). The Minister proposed the provision that the hon. Gentleman is probing.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have an even better reason to justify the term of imprisonment referred to in the Bill. If someone is sentenced to imprisonment, taking away their housing benefits seems a belt and braces approach, to say the least, to correcting their behaviour.
	My next point concerns previous offences. When a court passes sentence on someone who has been convicted of an offence, the sentence will reflect the form of the offender concerned. The offence for which the court was considering the offender could be relatively trivial but could be seen in the context of a series of prior offences that were not before the court. It seems peculiar, given the Bill's present wording, that the court can take into account only the convictions that are being considered.
	If somebody is up before a court for one event of disorderly conduct, such as trouble outside a pub or drunken, noisy behaviour on the way home, the court is unlikely to do much about it other than sentence that person to a community sentence at worst, although it would more likely be a fine. However, if that was just one in a long series of antisocial behaviour incidents, the court should be able to consider any previous unspent convictions when deciding whether a declaration under the Bill should be made. It is something of a loophole, if we are trying to deal with that annoying but relatively low-level form of antisocial behaviour that currently escapes the powers of the courts. I hope that the Minister will answer that point when he replies.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 relate to who sets the order for the withdrawal of benefit—the disqualification period. I have real concerns that this will simply be an administrative process. A court may make a declaration and have no real understanding or knowledge of how long that person will be disqualified from benefit. Equally, when the social services department imposes a disqualification period administratively, it may not know the full context, which the court may have known when deciding to make the declaration. The appropriate course would be to telescope that procedure into a declaration and disqualification, both of which should be considered by the court when deciding what action to take.
	When considering a sentence, the court always listens to a plea of mitigation. There may well be a social inquiry report and other matters may be brought to the court's attention when passing sentence. It seems peculiar if, at the same time, those facts are not brought to the attention of the person or body implementing the disqualification order.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will see that the situation is even worse than he describes, because we are not told the sort of benefit reductions that will apply. The Minister gave some indication in Committee but did not share with us the details that the Government have in mind in respect of the different stages of benefit reductions and how they would apply. It is all under regulation in the Bill. Therefore, in debating the hon. Gentleman's amendment, the House is bereft because we do not know the detail of what the Government intend.

Andrew Dismore: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The point is important. We are considering whether it is correct to impose as a simple administrative process what is, in effect, a sanction, when there are grades of offence. It would not be as though someone had failed to sign on or had fraudulently claimed benefit—either they have done that or they have not. We are considering the use of the benefit sanction as an adjunct to the powers of the courts, so it would be appropriate for the court to decide the length of disqualification.

Edward Davey: I understand from information given to us in Committee that the Government intend that the first reduction of housing benefit—when the sanction has been applied after the court's declaration—should be a fixed sum. The hon. Gentleman's point is thus even more valid; everyone will be treated in exactly the same way even if one person's antisocial behaviour was far worse than that of another.

Andrew Dismore: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt we shall also hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on that point when he replies to the debate.
	I am certainly concerned about the disqualification period, which we may discuss later. When the Select Committee on Work and Pensions visited the United States to examine such issues in the context of its benefits system, we found that the first penalty was often a short sharp shock rather than the long one that the Bill seems to presage. The court might want to take that point into account.
	Similarly, there could be repeat offences; an offender could come before the court to face a second benefit sanction. If there is no opportunity for the court to examine all the circumstances and to consider a gradation of penalty—perhaps increasing the disqualification period for a second offence—we are not sending the right message to offenders. I support some of the ideas behind the Bill, but I am worried about the practicalities. We would be wielding a big and rather inflexible stick instead of using the measure as it should be intended: to correct offending behaviour rather than to provide a penalty for having offended. We should see the measure as a tool of correction, to try to help people to recognise that they owe an obligation to society in return for their benefit, in which case a gradated approach would be far more appropriate.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend is of course aware that although we are discussing only one measure, the Government want to introduce a series of measures in the next Session, including model tenancy agreements, fast-track evictions, and conciliation services such as those in Dundee. It is not as though someone committing antisocial behaviour will go straight into court as a result of the Bill; there will be several steps before they reach that point.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but it does not mean that there should not be some degree of flexibility in the process so that it can complement those measures rather than being used as an inflexible stick at the end.

Edward Davey: May I clarify one point? I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was saying. Although the Government have a range of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, many of which we wholeheartedly support because they are exactly right, the Bill does not set out a process whereby those methods and policies can be used before the court is asked to make a declaration and the benefit sanction is applied. In Committee, I tried to insert a provision for such a process so that all the options could be explored, but the Government resisted such amendments. I do not want the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Davey) to be under any illusion: no process involving other measures is foreseen in the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps, in order to make this more of a debate than a conversation piece, the hon. Gentleman might save up his comments and seek to catch my eye later on.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I noted what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, and the House will obviously form its own view when it considers the amendments at the end of this short debate.
	The last amendment in my name in the group, and probably the most important, is amendment No. 11. It concerns the extent to which the penalty could have consequences for people who are not before the court, or are not directly in receipt of the benefit. If I may return to my basic point, which is that the power should be exercised by someone with a bit of discretion—that is, the court—it seems to me that the court should be able to take into account not only the circumstances of the offender before it, but any hardship that is likely to be inflicted on others as a consequence of that person's disqualification from benefit.
	If benefit is taken away and the person concerned happens to be the householder, that could have a serious impact on their children and/or their partner, husband or wife. I am keen to ensure that we do all that we can to deal with those who behave in the most appalling antisocial ways, but I do not believe that it will necessarily be constructive if in doing so we penalise the children or the partner in the relationship. That could make things worse. That would not necessarily apply in all cases, but the court should certainly have discretion to look at the hardship of what could be, according to the Bill, a very lengthy withholding of benefit. These provisions must be exercised with a degree of flexibility.

Edward Davey: I shall primarily speak to amendments Nos. 19, 21, 24 and 22, and I shall try not to be tempted to cover ground that I covered in exchanges with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) because that would try your patience sorely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Amendments 19, 21 and 24 are intended to highlight one major change to the Bill that has occurred during its passage. In Committee the Bill was effectively rewritten, and the sanction, instead of applying after two antisocial behaviour orders had been issued on a person—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) tries to intervene from a sedentary position. I am saying that the old Bill talked about two antisocial behaviour orders. It has been changed. In clause 1, the Government have introduced the link between the benefit sanction and a custodial sentence. Under clause 2, in civil proceedings the sanction will be triggered by some method of which we are not yet told, because those proceedings will be prescribed in due course in regulations.
	Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 24 are intended to challenge some of the thinking behind those amendments, particularly the linking of the sanction to the custodial sentence, which would introduce a double punishment. Once an offender's case has been heard, and he or she has been convicted of the crime that they were accused of, the court decides a punishment appropriate to the crime. Clause 1 seeks to add another punishment to that initial punishment. Although it may be related to the original offence—I wish to discuss that point in a second—it is a double punishment. That may well be a first in law, and to my knowledge it certainly is in benefit law, because other benefit sanctions have been introduced very differently.
	The second aspect that really concerns me is what will happen as a result of the relating of the extra punishment to a benefit sanction. The consequence will be one of two things. The offender will either come out of prison with debts because his rent has not been paid during his time in prison—at least the 13 weeks in prison that it can currently be paid for—or come out without a home.
	Either way—whether people come out of prison with increased debts or having lost their homes—the chance is that they will have no stable accommodation, as the opportunity to have stable accommodation will have been reduced. There can be no dispute about that fact because that is the Government's and, indeed, the Bill's original promoter's explicit aim, so there is no debate about that. My concern is what will happen as a result.
	I should have thought that our policies—whether those for benefits or housing in general—should ensure that ex-convicts, people coming out of prison, have a good chance of getting stable accommodation. Why? Because a lot of the evidence shows that the risk of reoffending significantly increases when ex-convicts do not have access to accommodation.
	Government reports—particularly the social exclusion unit report, "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners", which was published this month—and a lot of other detailed work by Departments say that reducing reoffending is one of the Government's key targets. The Government say that reoffending is a major problem and that they wish to stop the vicious cycle of crime, which can add to the prison population.
	Page 3 of the Prime Minister's foreword to that report says:
	"People who have been in prison account for one in five of all crimes. Nearly three in five prisoners are re-convicted within two years of leaving prison. Offending by ex-prisoners costs society at least £11 billion a year. This all tells us we are failing to capitalise on the opportunity prison provides to stop people offending for good."
	So the Bill, which deliberately sets out to penalise offenders by reducing housing benefits, goes exactly against what the Prime Minister said in a report published this month. I find it quite bizarre that we are debating the Bill given that the Government say that they are in favour of joined-up government.
	Having stable accommodation for ex-offenders has been shown to reduce the risk of reoffending by a fifth—a significant amount. If we could ensure that all prisoners have access to stable accommodation when they finish spending time at Her Majesty's pleasure, we would significantly reduce crime. That is what the evidence shows. The Bill, particularly clause 1, goes in exactly the opposite direction.
	A third of prisoners already lose their homes while in prison. That comes from recent Home Office research. The SEU report to which I have referred makes a number of recommendations to try to improve that figure, including changes to the housing benefit administration regime, which go in exactly the opposite direction to the Bill.
	The recent Home Office survey, "Jobs and homes—a survey of prisoners nearing release", says that
	"71 per cent. of those with no accommodation arranged on release had not received any help in finding accommodation."
	Clearly, the Prison Service and Her Majesty's Government have a lot more to do to tackle that aspect of reoffending. I cannot believe for a minute that they welcome the Bill because it would make that huge challenge far more difficult.
	I refer hon. Members to the details of the amendments in this group. If the amendments were accepted, they would at least mitigate some of the problems that I have identified. Amendment No. 19 would add another test: the court would have consider whether
	"it is satisfied that any withholding of benefit, as set out in section (3) below and related regulations, will not increase the likelihood of the offender committing similar offences again."
	That would ensure that, before making any declaration to trigger the benefits sanction, the court would have to consider the likelihood of such a sanction worsening the chances of reoffending. That is a sensible thing for the courts to have to consider, as the criminal justice system plays its full part in trying to reduce reoffending.
	Amendment No. 21 has a similar effect, but it amends clause 2 and would attempt to ensure that the civil courts were satisfied that there would be no increase in the likelihood of reoffending.
	Amendment No. 24 would apply at another stage. As it amends clause 3, it relates not to the court stage but to the stage when the Secretary of State would apply the benefit sanction. Before clause 3(1) kicked in, therefore, the Secretary of State would be required to review all the evidence as to the likelihood of the offender reoffending as a direct result of the benefit reduction. It is therefore very specific and targeted. It would require the Secretary of State not just to review the evidence but to state that, in his opinion, the benefit reduction does not increase that likelihood.
	I cannot see how the Minister could reject such an amendment. Given that his boss, the Prime Minister, stated this month in the publication from which I quoted that the Government's express aim is to reduce reoffending, and given that that document refers at length to the importance of improving the housing opportunities of people released from prison, the tests that I seek to add to the Bill are very mild, both for the court and the Secretary of State. I would therefore be extremely surprised if the Minister were to reject them.
	Amendment No. 22 states:
	"A court may only make a declaration under subsection (3) above against a person over the age of 65 if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances and if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable."
	The reason I have tabled that amendment is that people over the age of 65 need extra protection from the penal sanctions in the Bill. The Minister said in Committee that a hardship regime will be introduced, although we have not had any description of that hardship regime in any shape or form. Amendment No. 22, however, would at least ensure that pensioners over the age of 65—who could still be hit by those benefit sanctions, as I am sure the Minister would agree—would be subject to an extra test that the courts would have to consider. That can only be right.

James Clappison: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree, however, that in the real world an awful lot of people aged over 65 are looking for protection from the antisocial behaviour of others, who are predominantly younger people, and that they want to see people who behave antisocially, of whatever age, brought to account for it?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. He enables me to make the point that I had intended to make at the beginning of my remarks. Liberal Democrats take the problem of antisocial behaviour very seriously. We support strong, tough measures to deal with those who behave in that appalling way, to pensioners who are their neighbours or to people of any age in our communities. As I explained at length in Committee—I will not do so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are using innovative measures to deal with antisocial behaviour that are proving far more effective than the Government's measures.
	I quoted at length—I shall be brief now—the case of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are an innovation in the Liberal Democrat-controlled borough of Islington. Acceptable behaviour contracts did not require legislation. They are much quicker in effect than measures such as antisocial behaviour orders and the proposals that we are debating, and they have enabled the council, working with the different partners in the borough of Islington, to tackle the problem quickly. They do not require a legal process or huge expenditure of taxpayer's money. They have been very effective, however, at dealing with the problem.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for his intervention, because, effectively, he refers to the second part of my amendment No. 22, which states that the court must be
	"satisfied that no other method of dealing with that person's behaviour is applicable."
	When we debated the issue at length in Committee, we heard that many alternatives are available to local authority social services departments and so on. The alternatives are being piloted around the country, and I cited several examples. They all show the high degree of success of the relatively new experiments that deal with such behaviour.
	Liberal Democrats believe that successful experiments should be rolled out across the country. They should be fast-tracked and given top priority by the Government, so that we can ensure that councils and public authorities are made aware of the tools that they already possess, have the funds to ensure that they can act quickly and have the pressure of Government on them to ensure that they use those tools appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman's intervention was rather ill-advised. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that best practice is used. It would particularly ensure that older people are not affected, and I am grateful to Age Concern England and Age Concern London for the evidence that I have received from them. It shows how elderly people are currently disadvantaged under the complexities of the housing benefit administration system. There is a danger that the disadvantages that they already suffer will be exacerbated by the Bill. These are modest amendments.

Matthew Green: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that another point relates to those aged over 65. If financial penalties drive people into debt, a retired person is less able than someone of working age to work themselves out of debt. The use of financial penalties will especially penalise those who cannot earn the money to take themselves out of debt.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and one that I had not noticed. He strengthens the case for the amendment. I stress that it deals with people who have appeared before the courts. They have already been sentenced to prison or received a conditional discharge. They have been punished, but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Government are effectively seeking to put them into poverty and perhaps into homelessness. It is extraordinary that they should seek to make elderly people homeless; it is bizarre.

Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) does not need my protection, but the hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. The people to whom he referred are not the victims, but the perpetrators. No one is trying to put them into poverty; they are choosing to accept the sanctions by choosing to continue along the path of constant antisocial behaviour. It is their choice to have the sanctions, which they know about, imposed upon them.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman would have a point against my argument if it was that we should not do anything about such people. I made it very clear that we should be very tough and seek to change their behaviour. My argument, both in Committee and now, is that the approach taken by the Government and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will not work.
	I sought to discuss in Committee much of the evidence about other aspects of the benefits system in which benefit sanctions have been trialled and explored at some length—the new deal, the job seeker's allowance and so on. Much of the evidence suggests that benefit sanctions have not worked. I know that the right hon. Gentleman might jump to his feet and refer to examples of research in which people have said that they have changed their behaviour. He would be right to do so. I said in Committee that the evidence was mixed. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that I have changed my tune. I have not.

Frank Field: When the hon. Gentleman was under threat from the Chairman in Committee, he changed his behaviour and gave us a good example of how the threat—not the exercise—of sanctions actually worked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just a small point, but I said nothing in Committee.

Edward Davey: I confirm that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also confirm that the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) was exemplary. I had no quarrel with the Chairman. However, some of the amendments that I tabled for consideration today were not able to be debated in Committee because of a closure motion. The Committee was unable to sit for as long as I think it needed to in order to scrutinise a particularly serious Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: Given that in Committee the hon. Gentleman monopolised the time, so preventing concerned Conservative Members and Labour Members from discussing this important measure, our concerned constituents would like to know now whether he is trying to talk out the Bill.

Edward Davey: I assure the Minister that I am not intending to talk out the Bill. I can say to him that he and Conservative Members moved the closure motion. It was not Liberal Democrat Members who sought to reduce the time for debate in Committee. If there is any problem with the Bill not going forward, the Minister should take his share of the responsibility.
	I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). It is important that we try to improve the behaviour of these people because it is unacceptable. We must tackle it and be hard on it. That is why I quoted an example from the hon. Gentleman's own country, Scotland. I referred to the Dundee families project, which I will not talk about now because I did so at length in Committee. The project has proved exceedingly successful. It has involved resettlement of some families—taking them away from the communities that they are disrupting. I fully support such resettlement projects. In some cases, I even support evictions of these families. I do not suggest that we must be anything but tough on these people. We must be. The question is whether the approach set out in the Bill will either change their behaviour or result in less antisocial behaviour. I think that all the evidence shows that if we make people poorer and give offenders less chance of stable accommodation when they come out, crime will increase as well as antisocial behaviour. The proposition before us is contradictory in its own terms given the evidence which the Prime Minister supported this month.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the measures contained in the Bill are the only possible sanctions against the people about whom we are talking. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is only one of a wide range of measures. He is right to point out other measures, but this is an important measure even though it is one of many that the Government and local authorities should have at their disposal.

Edward Davey: I think the hon. Gentleman unintentionally misrepresents what I am saying. I am in favour of a range of measures. He has talked about a few of them, and the Minister has talked about some others, that are designed to tackle the sort of behaviour that we are discussing. My point is that the measure before us will have the reverse effect. It will increase antisocial behaviour, not reduce it. I think that all the evidence backs our case. We have had no evidence that the reverse is the case. I seek to draw the attention of the House to that.
	In drawing my remarks to a close, I wish to point out that the amendments that are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) are focused on a key aspect of policy for the criminal justice system. We are trying to stop reoffending, to stop crime, and to stop antisocial behaviour. That is the purpose behind our amendments, and they will have that effect. If the Government were to accept them, they would make the Bill better. Their insertion would remove some of the more worrying consequences of the Bill.

Frank Field: An intervention and the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), gave the game away for the Liberal Democrats. Any Member who was concerned to represent their constituents' views about how their lives are being ruined by a small, dedicated group of constituents behaving in an antisocial manner would have introduced their comments on the amendments by making that plain. It took an intervention to stir from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that that was the real point behind his amendments. I do not accept that. Liberal Democrat Members tabled a whole series of wrecking amendments in Committee, some of which we spent five hours going round and round, and they are doing it again today. We all have in our mind's eye the image of Liberal Democrats as being people with shaggy beards and sandals. They must be here today if they think that we have a load of 65-year-olds running around terrorising young families with children in an antisocial manner. Their amendments are absurd.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Field: I will in a minute, because it is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his seat.
	I hope all those who are of pensionable age in Surbiton and other Liberal Democrat seats think carefully about the absurd image that Liberal Democrats have of people who cause antisocial behaviour in their constituencies. It is to protect those older constituents that many of us on both sides of the House are supporting this and other measures.

Matthew Green: My concern about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that measures introduced by his Government, such as antisocial behaviour orders, are not being used. If there is such a huge problem, will he explain why ASBOs are not being used before he advocates more measures?

Frank Field: That question should have been addressed to the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers. If the measures are never used, why should they stir up the fear that this one will send vast numbers of our constituents to prison? The two things do not add up. When pressed in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members sprang up like jack-in-the-boxes to say, "Of course we are representing the interests of our constituents: we are massively concerned about antisocial behaviour, and we want a whole range of measures to deal with it." I therefore asked the Library to find out what concerns every Liberal Democrat had expressed about antisocial behaviour before the introduction of the Bill. Let me record on the Floor of the House that not one Liberal Democrat had asked a question about it, made a speech about it in this Chamber or written an article about it for a national or local newspaper. They may be concerned about it now, but they certainly were not before the introduction of the Bill.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I know that my hon. Friends have raised the issue. More importantly—with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman—Liberal Democrats on the ground are not just talking about it and writing articles, but producing policies to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. I challenge him to go to the borough of Islington to see how acceptable behaviour contracts are working. I also suggest that he go to the Home Office's website, where that Liberal Democrat innovation has been held up by his own Government as best practice and has been recommended across the country. That has not taken legislation or parliamentary questions, but active engagement by elected Liberal Democrat councillors in Islington. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remarks.

Frank Field: I shall not do so for the simple reason that, as Labour and official Opposition Members have made plain, if we are to stand any chance of countering antisocial behaviour more successfully than in the past, we need a whole range of measures, and the Government have said that they will provide them. Some will require legislation, but many will not. Some councils, thank goodness, are already pressing ahead with such measures, but others are dragging their feet.

Lawrie Quinn: Many seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby have a persistent problem in relation not only to tenants, but to landlords who fail to police and monitor their tenants' activities. My local council and local community would want this measure to be placed on the statute book to give them an extra deterrent to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with.

Frank Field: I agree. Given that our seaside towns usually have a higher proportion of elderly people than elsewhere, it is interesting that my hon. Friend chooses not to use the scare tactic of saying that we have to protect pensioners from the measure when, of course, we want to protect them from antisocial behaviour. He probably knows that a clause in the original Bill dealt directly with landlords. Sadly, it had to be withdrawn because it clashed with human rights legislation that the House passed.
	The good news is that the Government are considering measures for the next Session aimed specifically at bad landlords—in particular those who make a cool killing on milking housing benefit. Those people pay not the slightest attention to the way in which they contribute to the collapse of working-class areas by accommodating such families. None of us would want to live next door to those families, so we should not inflict them on our constituents.
	The Liberal Democrats took the typical old line of pulling out one tiny bit of Government policy. They said that the Bill must fall because it is against the Government's strategy on people who reoffend, but that is only part of their strategy. The Prime Minister's overall vision of our society is to remoralise it and to change people's behaviour. That is the cornerstone of policy. We are in a new situation in which old class politics are giving way to the new politics as regards how we control behaviour. As we get to grips with that agenda and fashion measures to deal with it, of course we must be careful and listen, especially to our constituents, but to pretend that we can pull measures off the shelf, as we could for the past century, as solutions to issues that are only just emerging, shows how naive the Liberal Democrats are on this issue.

Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the next election, the neighbours from hell who make so many people's lives a misery should put up Liberal Democrat posters in their windows, because it is clear from debates in Committee and the House that the Liberal Democrats are the party of the neighbourhood nuisance-makers?

Frank Field: We all hope that those who are in error change their ways. I have warned the Liberal Democrats, and in so doing perhaps slightly hardened their views about antisocial behaviour, that they have to answer one question: are they prepared to have one, let alone two, of those families living on one or both sides of them? Hence the Liberal Democrats' support in Committee for the establishment of what some people crudely call sin bins. If we do not want those families living next to us, we cannot expect to inflict them on our constituents. In that case, we have to think about where we put such families until they change their behaviour.

Karen Buck: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with care. As someone who has a serious problem of antisocial behaviour in my constituency, on which I have spoken many times, the aspect that concerns me most is that the neighbours from hell who have been evicted have almost invariably ended up living with friends, sometimes staying on their floors, in private accommodation, which gives the local authority virtually no leverage to deal with their behaviour. The consequence of the actions taken under the current provision is to relocate the problem from within, say, a council estate to a street nearby where their behaviour continues unchecked.

Frank Field: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. That is why I have lobbied the Government to the effect that local authorities should be given the resources so that they can build accommodation to house people who inflict such horrors on our constituents. That is part of the overall picture. However, the measure does not deal with it because the Bill's title means that we can deal with only one aspect of the problem in our debate. However, the contrast between the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) tabled and those that the Liberal Democrats tabled reveals a difference in approach.
	Let me deal with my hon. Friend's amendments. I accept that my hon. Friend was probing through the amendments and that he therefore probably already knows some of the answers. Indeed, given his legal experience, he probably knows them better than me. It is important that hon. Members do not have a view of the courts that is too mechanical. Things may be different in London, but most of our constituencies are clearly defined areas of towns, villages or groups of villages. The courts' operations happen against the background of that framework. Those there know a bit about the people who come before them.
	At the end of proceedings, a charge of antisocial behaviour will be made against the individual before the court. That should be taken into account when we devise sentencing policy. The House has always been careful not to be too prescriptive on sentencing; it grants some freedom of manoeuvre in a general framework. However, some courts are still waiting for their first, second or third order to arrive. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to that. The logic of his position is that we need to find methods of speeding up the process and ensuring that antisocial behaviour orders come before the courts more quickly.
	We began to consider the matter in Birkenhead seven years ago, and we lobbied the Labour party, which was then in opposition. We proposed a simple system of penalty points, which the police could apply mainly against young lads for their misbehaviour. That was not accepted and we got antisocial behaviour orders instead. Not one application for such an order has been successful in Birkenhead. Consequently, we have made representations to the Home Secretary to turn the procedure upside down so that one seeks an order and returns to the court after carrying out all the detailed work to implement it. The Home Secretary accepted that reform, which is outlined in the White Paper that was cited.
	Considering methods of controlling behaviour is new, and we realise that even after introducing a measure, we may have to revert to it to speed up the process of justice to protect our constituents.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember to address the Chair.

Karen Buck: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My local authority has also been slow in introducing antisocial behaviour orders. The primary problem is obtaining witness statements that are sufficient to enable the police and the local authority to take action. It is difficult to persuade members of the community to give evidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the principal reason for the slowness of ASBOs?

Frank Field: Indeed. When preparing for the debate, I asked our local authority, Wirral, to give me all its papers on taking four families in my constituency—the figure will be low in most constituencies—to court. A single parent who has been smashed in the face, pushed over and had her house wrecked by the family next door, is the only person under pensionable age who is appearing before the courts to give evidence, even though the family next door has threatened to kill her if she goes to court. That makes laughable the Liberal Democrat amendment to protect those over 65 and ensure that the Bill does not sanction them. In Birkenhead, and, I guess, even in Surbiton, the bravest people, who are prepared to go to court, stand up, and be seen and known by the thugs are pensioners. They feel that strongly about it.
	My answer to the point about the difficulty of getting cases to court is that on the first occasion, the sanction is applied only against the head of the household for a part of that head of household's benefit. The difficulty of getting the case back into court if the behaviour remains unchanged will be considerable, but the fuller sanction will be applied only against the head of the household and not to the housing benefit for the whole household. I hope that by the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon will feel that this aspect of the Bill has been explored effectively, and that further probing will take place when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.

James Clappison: I shall be brief. The Conservatives welcome the Bill and want it to make progress because it deals with a serious issue for many of our constituents, that of antisocial behaviour by badly behaved neighbours.
	With that in mind, I appeal to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to think again about his amendments. The Committee debated how long the prison sentence in respect of which the sanction would not apply should be, and the Minister told us that it was not appropriate in respect of longer sentences. The Committee accepted that. As for taking unspent convictions into account, the hon. Gentleman will see that the Bill catches antisocial behaviour on any occasion on which it arises. The legal definition of antisocial behaviour is the same as is used in other statutes. The message is clear: the Bill is designed to catch antisocial behaviour and to bring it to a halt.
	As a result of amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and supported by the Conservatives that were accepted by the Committee, we now know how long the period of reduction of benefit—the disqualification period—will be. It will be at least 26 weeks, which substantially strengthens the Bill. As for the question of hardship, I ask the hon. Member for Hendon to read the Committee debate on the provisions that were to be put in place to deal with that.
	I understand the point of view being expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), but have difficulty with his approach to the Bill. I wish that he would face up to the consequences of his arguments. When we debate disapplying provisions in the Bill for the over-65s, we are becoming somewhat fanciful. I do not know what sort of world he inhabits, but it appears to be full of Victor Meldrews on crack. In the real world—the one inhabited by our constituents—the over-65s are often the people who are affected by antisocial behaviour. As for their being made homeless, they will not be made homeless as a result of the Bill; what all too often makes the over-65s and many others homeless is their own decision to leave their homes because they can no longer endure the behaviour of people around them.
	We want more measures to bring antisocial behaviour to a stop. People are crying out for assistance—for a measure that will end the behaviour that far too many people have to endure and that makes their life a torment. We appeal to the Liberal Democrats, even at this late stage, to face up to the consequences of their actions. They must realise that the Bill will help people, or at least acknowledge that their chosen approach will block a piece of legislation that would otherwise help many people whose lives have been made a misery by the antisocial behaviour of others. We want to stop that behaviour, they want it to be stopped, and I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton not to continue his present course of trying to talk out a measure that many people want and that would help many people, including the elderly.

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to be back in the Chamber discussing the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) following an extensive series of debates in Committee. The Government fully support the Bill's objectives in preventing antisocial behaviour which, as some speakers today have said, blights the lives of so many of our constituents. We believe that it would make a valuable third strand in our armoury, alongside the use of antisocial behaviour orders and the Government's strategy to improve landlords' powers to tackle antisocial tenants.
	Our priority has been to make the Bill workable and compatible with human rights legislation. We recognise the concerns that have been expressed urging caution but also the voices recommending a tougher approach. We believe that the Government amendments made in Committee strike the right balance.
	I shall not try to respond to each of the amendments individually. They have a common theme in giving a greater role to the courts in deciding whether to apply a benefit sanction and considering the likely implications of any sanction. We would all agree with many of the objectives of the amendments, such as that of ensuring that sanctions are used in a fair and proportionate way, but as I explained in Committee, the Government's proposals will achieve those objectives by a different route and the approach suggested here is not compatible with the streamlined process that we introduced with the Government amendments.
	We deliberately designed a procedure of court declarations that would sit on top of decisions that the courts already make. It will be a relatively quick and straightforward decision following a conviction or an order. The crucial factor under our approach is that the courts need consider only the nature of the behaviour—that is, was it antisocial or not? There is no need for them to know whether the person is on benefits, has other family members, has received previous declarations and so on.
	In practice, the courts have no way of knowing many of those things. There is no ready mechanism for them to check whether someone is receiving housing benefit, or the details of their family. Equally, they may not know whether there has been a previous court declaration, especially if that declaration was made in a different type of court proceeding, either civil or criminal.
	Requiring the courts to find out and take account of such factors would drastically increase the amount of work involved in making declarations. We believe that it would be disproportionate in relation to the objective and could risk disrupting the wider work of the criminal and civil justice systems. In a week when the Government have just published the criminal justice White Paper, that is an important factor to bear in mind.
	For those reasons, we believe that the amendments would not work under our approach and that they are not necessary. The Government's plan is to set up a hardship scheme in the same way as for other benefit sanctions, taking account of the family circumstances at the point when the sanction is applied, and not just when the court is making a declaration. For example, it may be some time after the court hearing before a sanction is put in place, allowing time to cross-match declarations against housing benefit records. The composition of the household may have changed in that time.
	The Government approach would be not only more streamlined and efficient but more responsive to family circumstances, and therefore more effective at preventing hardship as a result of benefit sanctions.

Steve Webb: To clarify how existing hardship provisions work, can the Minister tell me—I genuinely do not know—whether support can be given to the sanctioned person because the sanction has caused hardship, or only when the hardship is caused to other family members?

Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the hardship regime is to take account of children and other factors such as a pregnancy. If the Bill is enacted, we will spell that out in secondary legislation and the House will be able to discuss it. We noted the hardship regime as one example of our approach, but we will need to take expert advice and make specific proposals in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) asked about prison sentences. There is clearly no exact science, but the Government think that there should be a cut-off point to exclude long prison sentences. The question is where to set it, and that is a matter of judgment. We feel that a year is about right. In practice, that means that anyone who served longer than six months would be excluded. With shorter prison sentences, there is perhaps less distinction between offenders sent to prison and those given alternative punishments. Exempting shorter sentences might create a more arbitrary cut-off, whereby people who carried out similar kinds of antisocial behaviour were treated differently under the Bill. That is the thinking behind our approach to this issue.
	The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is a very important one that has been welcomed by many people on both sides of the House. As he noted, increasing numbers of such cases are brought to us in our constituency advice surgeries, and I am afraid that my own constituency of Croydon, North is not exempt from such bad behaviour. My constituency notes show instances of people being verbally threatened, and doors being kicked and bashed in order to frighten residents. In one case, a saw was held to a woman's neck and she was racially abused, and in another a blowtorch was used through a neighbour's letterbox. A woman who asked that a dog stop barking incessantly was attacked with a knife. In a further case, a radio was left on constantly, not tuned in to any particular channel, with the windows left open. There was also an instance of dog faeces being put through a letter-box.
	In one case that I personally recall—it is particularly relevant to the debate—a woman and her children had to flee their own house because of antisocial behaviour, a form of self-eviction over which she had no choice. When I hear the Liberal Democrats talk about the terrible plight of those who might be evicted if they continue in their antisocial behaviour and sanctions are stepped up, I wonder why they do not recognise—as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) recognised—that in effect, many decent, honest people are evicted because of such behaviour. That is an important point.

Geraint Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, as a council leader I employed private detectives to ensure that evidence was submitted to enable the eviction of unruly tenants. Does he agree, however, that the purpose of housing benefit is to enable those on low incomes to pay for their housing, and that it is not a tool for other policy objectives? Those who are rich will have no sanction against them, and the danger is that this Bill will be seen as evidence that those who do not behave themselves might lose their home—unless, that is, they are well off.

Malcolm Wicks: We have stressed that there are different weapons in the armoury, some of which I have noted. For example, owner-occupiers can also be antisocial, and hopefully antisocial behaviour orders will apply in their case. However, I would find it difficult to explain to those of my Croydon constituents who are being abused and harassed why that is happening, and why those responsible are having their rent paid by the rest of the community. If we are to turn the decent rhetoric of rights and duties into practical social policies, we have to get real and get tough where appropriate—not for the sake of being macho, but for the sake of the decent people in our constituencies who form the great majority.
	We dealt with these matters in great detail in Committee, and as I pointed out, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) chose—sadly—to hog the discussion for various purposes, but mainly to hold up the Bill's progress. That showed great discourtesy to those Conservative and Labour Members who wanted to make proper contributions to the debate—including, no doubt, some challenging questions for me in my role as the Minister tabling amendments. I recall that the Chairman of the Standing Committee urged the hon. Gentleman on several occasions—some 15 times in respect of the first group of amendments—to make progress. That shows the real concern that exists about such bad behaviour in Committee. The Liberal Democrats' sole purpose—[Interruption.] They are muttering because they are embarrassed. Their sole purpose was to oppose the Bill as amended by the Government. They opposed the idea of an additional useful, and perhaps minor, weapon in the armoury against antisocial behaviour.
	I find that approach troublesome, because it would have been good if we could have returned to our constituencies tonight and—in my advice surgery this evening, for example—reassured our constituents that Parliament was taking their views seriously and had now sent to the House of Lords a serious measure that had been usefully amended. Sadly, that may not be possible now because of the tactics of the Liberal Democrats.
	In drawing my remarks on the amendments to a conclusion, it is not unfair for me to say that in our constituencies, whether those be in Croydon or Surbiton, it will be the abusers, the bullies, the harassers and the thugs who will be pleased by the Liberal Democrats' performance both today and in Committee. That is not just political rhetoric; I say it with more sorrow than anger.
	The Liberal Democrats' political tactics on the Bill will come back to haunt them. This must be the first case in our democracy of Liberals writing the manifestos of their political opponents for the next general election. The people who are crying out for decent social policy and decent law to stem the tide of antisocial behaviour will be aghast at their tactics today.

Steve Webb: Faced with a bad Bill, we have a duty to scrutinise it and, if it should come to a vote, to oppose it. We make no apology for that, because we would be doing the victims of antisocial behaviour no service by passing bad legislation that will make a bad problem worse.
	Our amendment No. 19 says that a court should make a declaration and pave the way for cutting housing benefit only if it is convinced that doing so will not lead to further reoffending. How can anyone oppose that? If the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, (Mr. Field) is so confident that his measure will reduce antisocial behaviour, he should also be confident that that test would always be passed. If it were, the courts would always make the declarations and we would not have stopped the process. Our amendment would bite only if a court of law—which would presumably be on the side of justice rather than on the side of the offender—thought that the declaration would not help to reduce reoffending. In that case the declaration should certainly be stopped, so what could possibly be wrong with the amendment?

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the fear and worry caused by the prospect of losing their home would be likely to stop people reoffending?

Steve Webb: I do not deny for a moment that some individuals might be affected by that threat, but others will carry on regardless. They may be pushed from one neighbourhood to another, causing mayhem wherever they go. Critically, that might undermine attempts to make them less likely to reoffend. For example, the evidence suggests that antisocial behaviour is often linked with the abuse of drugs and alcohol. How are the support services ever to solve those problems if we keep shunting people from one place to another? That simply mucks up the support services and wrecks any chance those people may have of building up a relationship with the professionals who might have been able to help to solve their problems.
	It is no good Members of Parliament pretending that some of us are the good guys and the others are the bad guys. We are all against antisocial behaviour—but we oppose a Bill that will make matters worse, and is not on the side of the victims.

Frank Field: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that the Bill will make matters worse, when his hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that no matters would ever be referred to the courts? Either one Liberal Democrat is right or the other is; they cannot both be right.

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman must have misheard my hon. Friend; that is not what I understood him to say.

Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the migration problem when people are moved from one neighbourhood to another. Does he realise that the movement of people from one seaside resort to another is now being encouraged by absentee landlords who are trying to milk the system? What answer does he have for my constituents who have asked me to come here today and support the Bill? What does he think I should tell them?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As he has discovered from earlier interventions, the parts of the Bill that deal with landlords have been removed, so nothing in the Bill deals with the point that he makes. However, a document from the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions on tackling antisocial tenants makes proposals that would help deal with landlords who do not take their responsibilities seriously.

Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: I should like to pick up on one of the Minister's points, if I may. The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly fair point about the relative merits of our amendment as against other ways of assessing whether these measures would lead to more or less antisocial behaviour. He said that the court should not make this decision because there would be an administrative cost in getting all the information that it needed, which would slow the court down, but he did not say who would take the decision. The Secretary of State and his representatives decide whether taking this action is likely to reduce reoffending, but are we talking about a housing benefit officer or someone representing the Secretary of State?

Malcolm Wicks: indicated dissent

Steve Webb: The Minister shakes his head. I am not clear who will take the decision, and I am happy to give way if he can tell me who will.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the discussions, of course, because he was not in Committee. The court makes the judgment as to whether behaviour is antisocial. There will then be an automatic sanction policy. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the details instead of trying to hold up proceedings, he would understand that point.

Steve Webb: I am not sure whether my five-minute contribution has played a major part in this delay. Indeed, it was certainly not my hon. Friends who delayed the debate in Committee.
	When cutting housing benefit is considered, the test should be whether such action would help. We should all agree on that. We believe that the court should make that decision because it is the only place where all the information about the person accused of the offences is present. The court has access to what the probation officers say and the social inquiry report. No one else has that information.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman believe, to take a parallel situation, that the fixed penalty for a speeding offence should be imposed only if the court is convinced that it will reduce someone's speed in future?

Steve Webb: The difference is that, under these measures, people will lose the roof over their heads. That is more likely to affect the possibility of someone reoffending than whether they incur a fine for speeding. The order of magnitude is completely different.

Frank Field: I just wanted to take the hon. Gentleman back to his argument. It is clear who makes the decision—it is the court.

Steve Webb: We are saying that the court should make that decision based on a further test which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, will always be passed. If the right hon. Gentleman is empirically correct that imposing these sanctions will reduce the likelihood of further antisocial behaviour, the test that we are trying to impose will never stop things. We believe that if the court considers the evidence independently and decides that imposing a penalty will not make a difference or will actually make things worse, it will not have to do so. That is the discretion that we want for the courts, which have the ability to consider all the circumstances.

Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: No, I do not want to delay the House any further.
	There are issues in this group of amendments that need further scrutiny. However, we cannot say that the Bill has come to the House completely different from how it was on Second Reading and the first day of its Committee stage. It has had one day of Committee scrutiny and an hour or so today. We should never let legislation go any further without proper scrutiny, especially when it is bad legislation like this Bill.
	Amendment negatived.

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	'and provide written evidence of that anti–social conduct'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after "convictions", insert—
	'and by reason of the written evidence it has considered as to the specific anti–social conduct concerned,'.
	No. 20, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "behaved", insert—
	'and has considered written evidence of the anti–social conduct'.
	No. 23, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
	'(6) Where a court is minded to make an order under this section and it forms the view that any person against whom the order is intended is unable to represent himself properly and is not otherwise represented, the court shall adjourn the proceedings to give any such person the opportunity of securing legal representation.'.

Edward Davey: The amendments seek to ensure that the court has written evidence of antisocial conduct. As the Bill stands, the court will make the declaration following discussions on whether the person should be convicted of the crime of which they are accused, not related to any antisocial behaviour. The only test for antisocial behaviour is whether someone could have been responsible for antisocial behaviour at the same time as committing a crime. No evidence is required for the court to judge whether antisocial behaviour occurred. All we want to do is to ensure that there is written evidence before the court, so I would like—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Remaining Private Members Bills
	 — 
	PENSIONS ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for further consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Energy (Conservation) Bill seems to have disappeared from the Order Paper. Can you confirm that it was withdrawn by order of the promoter of the Bill, under pressure from Government Whips? How much has it cost the taxpayer for the Bill to go through so many of its parliamentary stages, and would you agree that it is a denial of the sovereignty of Parliament that a Bill supported by the votes of a majority of the House should be cut by a Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not consulted the Official Report as I ruled on that matter on a point of order yesterday. The later questions that he asked cannot possibly be matters on which the Chair could comment.
	Further consideration what day? No day named.

PRIME MINISTER (OFFICE, ROLE AND FUNCTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

FOOD POVERTY (ERADICATION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HOUSING (WALES) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 15 November

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

MUSEUMS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ALCOHOL SERVICES BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

WASTE BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in our rules or procedures to protect the House against Members who allow their Bills to be on the Order Paper, thus raising expectations among other Members and people outside, but who gratuitously fail to be here on the day so that their Bill has no chance of making progress? Is there anything that can protect us from that casual attitude of Members to the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As in all matters, all hon. Members are expected to behave in a responsible way and are entirely responsible for their conduct in the House.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that one can place on record the fact that, so far at least, the vast majority of Members who have not shown up to move their Bills—if not all of them—are Labour Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Official Report will show precisely what has happened and people may make their own interpretation.

David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If some Members have been unavoidably detained and thus unable to be here to move their Bills, would it be possible for other Members, who may have an interest in the matter to move the Bills in their place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that procedure has already been demonstrated and is in order.

RELATIONSHIPS (CIVIL REGISTRATION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 January].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

TRESPASSERS ON LAND (LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE AND EVICTION)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal convention that if a Member is moving a Bill on behalf of another hon. Member, they should say that they have the consent of the Member concerned?

Hon. Members: Wrong again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on the question whether the Bill is moved, no.

RIGHT TO SELF-EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND REMEDIES BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

AGE DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November.

TREASON FELONY, ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY OATH BILL

Order for Second Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me. We have so far had three Bills this afternoon in respect of which Her Majesty had to go to the trouble to give her consent to allow us to proceed to Second Reading. Is it not appalling that, Her Majesty having gone to that trouble, we do not now have the opportunity as a House to consider those three Bills? Could you advise me how we may enable those three Bills to be discussed and considered in the House after Her Majesty has gone to such trouble?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance once again. Is there any way in which at least we can place on the record the fact that now, Labour Back Benchers' Bills are being killed by their own Government Whips?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has just done so.

HEALTH REFORM (EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PRESCRIPTIONS (CHRONIC DISEASES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us are used to this end-of-term cull of good prospective legislation—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—by the Government. To which Committee would we refer the question whether we could make the Government give reasons for objections when they make them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he might take this up with the Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chairman would be pleased to hear from him.

FIREARMS (REPLICA WEAPONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

FOOD LABELLING BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members have moved Bills in the names of other Members who are not present without indicating whether they have the consent of those Members, which is the usual courtesy, can we assume that they are doing so without the Member's consent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not an assumption on which the occupant of the Chair can comment.

PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Geraint Davies: I beg to move formally, with the consent of the hon. Member concerned.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

REGULATION OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November

AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEES BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

DATA PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No named day.

SHOPS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOOD SAFETY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

WASTE (No.2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

HEALTH (AIR TRAVELLERS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTERS (RESTRICTIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituents are crying out for this Bill, and I have had inquiries about it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot engage in a debate now. He could have done so if he had been given the opportunity, but he cannot do so now.

ANIMAL SANCTUARIES (LICENSING) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far we have dealt with 41 Bills on the Order Paper, many of which have been moved by my hon. Friends or myself. In particular, three of the Bills that stand in my name—those on the health of air travellers, which covers deep vein thrombosis; on animal sanctuaries, the proper regulation of which is a matter close to all our hearts; and, lastly and most seriously, on organ donation—have all been objected to by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is a Government Whip.
	We are rapidly approaching the 44th Bill on the Order Paper—the Control of Fireworks (No. 2) Bill. Although it may not be as important as the other three of my Bills to which the Government Whip has already objected, it deals with some important safety matters that affect my constituency and those of every other Member. Can you advise me whether there is any way in which I can prevent the Government from blocking further discussion of that Bill in the cavalier fashion that they have exhibited today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady knows the answer to her own question. Under the procedures of the House, many Bills—good or bad—do not get the time that their promoters and sponsors perhaps think would be sufficient for them.

LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the record show that it was the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who objected to all three of my highly worthy Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The discerning reader of the Official Report may well make that assumption.

TRAVELLER LAW REFORM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CONTROL OF FIREWORKS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

HOME ENERGY CONSERVATION (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 15 November

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), a Government Whip, has objected to a Bill that has been supported by five Ministers and the majority of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only confirm that I received an objection and that it was taken.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you not agree, and is there any way of making it absolutely clear, that the Government have objected to this Bill, which would attempt to make it much more difficult for irresponsible teenagers to fire air guns at animals and at people, thereby causing injury? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are against that sort of sensible measure to protect the public?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates, those are not matters on which the Chair can comment.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (PROHIBITION OF SALE) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which I can show for the record that a Government Whip has just blocked a Bill that was modelled on another that arose out of the terrible Fred West murders case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No more than in the words that the hon. Gentleman has used.

Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which I can place on the record the fact that the points of order made by Opposition Members today are a pantomime, given that when they were in government they objected to private Members' Bills in exactly the same way? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, has a considerable record of many years of objecting to private Members' Bills.

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that Opposition Members and Labour Members have been consistently trying to get the Home Energy Conservation (No. 2) Bill through all its stages during this Session? The Government have gone against the sovereign will of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must not get involved in debate on particular measures. The official record shows precisely what has happened throughout this Session.

RAPE (CONSENT) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By my reckoning, the Government have today callously killed 33 private Member's Bills. Can you confirm whether that is a record? It strikes me that this Government have excelled more than any other in the heartless and inconsiderate killing off of these Bills, many of which my hon. Friends obviously cared about and took the trouble to bring to the House only to find the hopes of many people outside the House dashed by the Government and the Government Whip.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot answer off the cuff from the Chair the question that the right hon. Gentleman has posed. I dare say, however, that that information can be unearthed with a degree of research.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am conscious that the Government have objected to both the Food Labelling Bill and the Food Safety (Amendment) Bill in the extraordinary calumny this afternoon of defeating more than 30 Bills of good measures. I have a record of taking a keen interest in those particular matters on behalf of my constituents and consumers throughout the country. The Government have always proclaimed, but, clearly, by their actions, they are not prepared to follow through, their concern for the safety of the public in terms of the food that they eat and the protection of farmers' interests—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, the hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a debate on the substance of these measures. Secondly, there is still some time left in this Session, and I do not think that he needs advice from me on the opportunities that may be available to raise the subjects in which he is interested.

BRITAIN'S MUSLIMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Gareth Thomas: Since I was elected to the House, a number of Adjournment debates have explored issues of concern to specific communities. Among the most recent was a debate on Sikhs in Britain that was initiated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). In discussion with my constituents, a series of concerns affecting the Muslim community have been raised with me. I am therefore grateful that Mr. Speaker saw fit to grant me this opportunity to highlight its concerns.
	Islam is one of the world's great religions. "Islam" derives from the word for peace, and it involves allegiance to God and to his prophet Mohammed, and the Koran sets out the teaching of Mohammed as relayed to him by God. There are five pillars of the Islamic faith. Shahada is the profession of faith, and salat is the formal act of worship. Zakat is the giving of alms to the poor and is assessed on the basis that all adult Muslims give 2.5 per cent. of their capital assets once a year. The hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca, which every Muslim is supposed to undertake at least once in their lifetime. I understand that an estimated 20,000 British Muslims undertake it each year. Sawn is fasting during Ramadan.
	There have been Muslims in Britain for centuries. It is worth placing it on record that Britain's first mosque was established in Woking in 1889, and London's first mosque was built in 1941. An estimated 1.2 million to 1.8 million people of Muslim faith are in the United Kingdom, with an estimated 675,000 to 780,000 Muslims actively attending one of the 660 mosques in the UK.
	There are three mosques in my borough. The oldest is Harrow central mosque, which has been active for 20 years. It developed from one house that was converted into a mosque, and it gradually extended as other neighbouring properties were bought and adapted. The mosque is used predominantly by Sunni Muslims. The second mosque is in Stanmore, in the neighbouring constituency of the Under–Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and it is used mainly by Shia Muslims. The third mosque, the Mehfil Ali mosque in north Harrow, is in my constituency and it has been in use for 10 years. It is used predominantly by Shia Muslims, and by Sunni Muslims as well. The three mosques serve an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims, who are also served by a variety of other local cultural and social organisations for which a key co-ordinating body is the Middlesex Muslim forum, which was set up two years ago to promote dialogue within local Muslim organisations and between the local Muslim community and decision makers. In particular, I commend the work of Riaz and Razir Esmail for their establishment of the forum and for keeping it as active as it is.
	In 1997, the Runnymede Trust published a report, "Islamophobia: a challenge for us all", which described Islamophobia as an unfounded hostility to or dread of Islam. It considered the practical consequences of such hostility. They include the unfair discrimination against Muslims in the provision of services; the violence, verbal abuse and vandalism of property that takes place simply because someone is a Muslim; the exclusion of Muslims from employment and senior management positions and from the political process; as well as prejudice in the media and in everyday conversation.
	The Runnymede Trust rightly drew a distinction between unfounded hostility to Islam and an entirely legitimate and democratic disagreement with elements of Islamic faith or particular Muslim organisations or activities. It is certainly not wrong to challenge or criticise the speeches of one or two extreme clerics and the activities of their adherents, but it is patent nonsense to think that they reflect the opinions of the vast majority of Muslims in my constituency or more generally.
	As a prelude to a week of articles that explored the depth and breadth of the Muslim community in Britain, the opening paragraph of a leading article in The Guardian a month ago reflected the concerns of many Muslims in my constituency. It said:
	"Muslims have been on the receiving end of so many accusations over the last year that it sometimes requires an extra effort to see past the stereotypes".

Paul Goodman: On that point, would the hon. Gentleman like to pay tribute to the work of imams in my constituency and throughout the country, who rightly made it clear in the aftermath of 11 September that the actions on that day were in no way representative of the real teachings of Islam?

Gareth Thomas: I pay tribute to the imams in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and endorse his general comments.
	The Guardian article continued:
	"At home . . . since September 11, Muslims have been placed under an often unforgiving spotlight. They have been depicted as angry and alienated, united in opposition to modernity and tolerance, and as people who choose to live culturally separate lives involving a minimum of interconnection with our values . . . To others, Muslims are already the enemy within, a fifth column."
	I think that that analysis is perhaps somewhat over the top, but it is undoubtedly true that Muslims in Britain are looking at Members in this place to take further action to tackle the consequences of the religious and racial discrimination that the community continues to experience in Britain. I think that they are right to do so.
	It would be useful, for example, if the Press Complaints Commission were to consider how the Muslim community has been reported, especially over the past nine months or so. The new head of the commission might want to undertake that task. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions over the past 18 months about discrimination against Muslims and the Government's response. I welcome the progress that has been made since 1997, but through this debate I hope to encourage the Government to go further.
	During the series of articles in The Guardian on the Muslim community, a poll of British Muslim was featured. A third of all Muslims say that they or their families have been abused because of their faith. It is too soon for any analysis to be made of attacks on Muslims since 11 September, but anecdotal evidence of a rise in the number of attacks—especially on visible Muslims such as those wearing traditional dress, for example—has circulated in the media and within the Muslim community. Similarly, anecdotal reports of a rise in vandalism against mosques have been noted.
	I am pleased to say that there have not been significant problems for the local Muslim community in Harrow since 11 September, not least because of the strong partnership that exists between local community organisations, led by Harrow Council for Racial Equality, and the local police. I commend the ongoing work of Asad Omar, who is one of my constituents. He has recently been elected as a local councillor for his leadership in the community. I commend also the leadership of the local police. I hope that such positive partnership working will continue to be encouraged, particularly throughout the Metropolitan police area.
	The Runneymede Trust report chronicled the level of racial harassment and violence back in 1997, supporting the intention, now implemented, of new legislation to make racial violence a specific offence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will outline the further efforts that are being made to bring the perpetrators of racially motivated crime, particularly against Muslims, to justice, and to improve the recruitment of members of the Muslim community into the police and the wider criminal justice system.
	The trust recommended even in 1997 that incitement to religious hatred should be made unlawful, and that when sentencing offenders for crimes of violence or harassment, courts should formally treat evidence of religious hatred as an aggravating factor. I welcome the fact that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences including assaults, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, and provided that there should be greater penalties where there is evidence of religious hatred. I hope that my hon. Friend will detail how the courts, police and prosecuting authorities are being trained to use those powers. I welcome the fact that the Act increased the penalty for inciting racial hatred from a maximum of two years to seven years in prison. Like many Labour Members, I was disappointed that the proposal to make incitement to religious hatred an offence had to be dropped from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act because of opposition in the other place. I welcome the decision by Lord Avebury and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) to reintroduce those provisions in private Members' Bills, which will keep the debate and the argument for the measure moving forward. It is worth restating that similar provisions have existed in Northern Ireland since 1987, and that the Bills would prevent only religious hatred, not comedy or genuine religious debate, as some feared when the proposals were first mooted last year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that we remain committed to legislation when time allows.
	In its report, the Runnymede Trust chronicled the under-representation of Muslims in political life. The situation has changed since the trust first began its work on the report, with the elections of my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and the appointment of four new Muslim peers to the House of Lords. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the formation of an all-party friends of Islam group to consider issues of importance to the Muslim community on a cross-party basis. It is essential to take further action to stimulate dialogue and understanding and to encourage active debate between representatives of the Muslim community at all levels of government.
	One issue that the all-party group will want to consider is the extent to which our efforts to modernise and reform public services to make them more client-focused are succeeding in respect of the Muslim community. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain how Muslim organisations, charities, cultural organisations and other independent sector Muslim groups are being invited to work in partnership with Government—for example, to prevent crime and to improve our delivery of health care, education and employment. In its report, the Runnymede Trust undertook a comprehensive examination of the extent to which Britain was making progress towards being an inclusive society for the Muslim community. It highlighted concerns across public services, noting the sharp rise in the number of Muslim men in prison and the fact that unemployment levels for those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin were considerably higher proportionately than for other people. The trust also highlighted work by the Policy Studies Institute, again noting the relatively greater disadvantage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families in housing and public health, and called for further research to explore the level of opportunity for Muslims to hold senior staff positions in local government and in the civil service and to be appointed to quangos.
	The report also drew attention to examples of where public services could be more finely honed for the Muslim community. To pick out two specific examples, Muslim women often do not use mainstream leisure services as they want to take advantage of women-only sessions and want such sessions to be entirely private. Although providers of leisure services are increasingly providing women-only swimming sessions, some are neither entirely private nor have women lifeguards. What may seem to many outside the House to be trivial concerns are of considerable importance to the Muslim community, who are as a result unable to partake of such mainstream services. It would not take a rocket scientist to address that issue, and more effective dialogue with the Muslim community could produce improvements to services from which all women would benefit.
	Another example concerns the burial of Muslims. Islam requires the early burial of a dead relative, ideally within 24 hours. Most local authority cemeteries are geared up for speedy burials during the traditional working week, but the facility to provide early burial at weekends is much more problematic and patchy. Local authorities with significant Muslim communities need to be encouraged to consider how such issues can be considered further. Perhaps the Government might encourage local government, through the best value process, to consider the issues in more detail in those areas where there are significant Muslim communities. I also hope that my hon. Friend can say what preparations are being made to implement the welcome EC employment directive outlawing discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion.
	Lastly, will my hon. Friend consider, in the reviews of planning law, whether proposals for new mosques, or extensions to mosques, can be dealt with more appropriately, so that the needs of local communities and worshippers are addressed effectively? We need to ensure that proposals for mosques do not become the source of tension within communities. Of course licensing should properly reflect the needs of neighbours, but it must also reflect the observance of key religious traditions.
	Since my election to the House, I have seen it as my role to speak up for the people of Harrow, West; to raise key local concerns about public services; to resist proposals that will have a damaging impact on my constituency; and to raise wider concerns about the Government's work. Members of the Muslim community in my constituency have raised those concerns with me, and it is right that they have an airing in the House. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response.

Michael Wills: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. It is clearly an important subject for his constituents and he has shown characteristic diligence and assiduity in pursuing their concerns. However, the subject is important for the country as a whole.
	The Government have a clear vision of a multicultural and multifaith Britain; a truly dynamic society that values the contribution made by each of our many diverse communities. We have a pluralistic view of our national identity, in which Muslims and representatives of all communities come together under the broad heading of our British identity. It is vital to ensure that all communities live and work together, and retain their distinctive identities, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Since the events of 11 September, that vision has been tested in various ways. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) rightly stated that those events and those who perpetrated them are in no way representative of Islam, and I want to stress how much the Government agree with him.
	British Muslims bring with them a strong and inspiring history of academic, scientific and cultural achievement which enriches all of us in Britain today. There has been a significant Muslim presence in Britain for at least 300 years. Britain's first mosque was established in 1889. The site for the Regent's Park mosque was donated by the British Government in 1944. Today more than 1,000 mosques serve the 2 million or so British Muslims.
	It is particularly important that we celebrate the Muslim community's contribution—socially, culturally and economically—to the stability and prosperity of British society. Islam is thriving within Britain as a religion, and many people are converting to it because they find in it both spiritual enlightenment and personal freedom. That is why Islamophobia is such a cancer and why we must tackle it. The Government have a role to play, but so has the rest of society. We have to ensure that we are engaged with the Muslim community in many ways. We need to stress over and over again that those terrible events on 11 September last year had nothing to do with Islam.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe drew attention to his constituents' condemnation of those terrible atrocities. The general response of British Muslims in condemning those atrocities reminds us of the real Islam: an Islam of peace, tolerance and understanding.
	That is why the Government find the unprovoked attacks on Muslims so repugnant. We all need to understand that careless use of Islamophobic language and images causes great suffering in Muslim communities. In the worst cases, it influences those who abuse and attack Muslims. It has no place to our society.
	My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that we must engage with the anxieties of Muslims and other minority faiths about religious discrimination. We must consider the case for it to be made subject to the law. That inevitably raises many difficult, sensitive and complex questions to which there are no easy answers or quick fixes. The Government are determined to take a strong lead in eliminating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. We are therefore tackling religious discrimination in several ways.
	My hon. Friend referred to article 13 of the EC employment directive. As hon. Members know, it outlaws discrimination in employment and training on grounds that include religion. We are committed to implementing it by 2 December 2003.
	The Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation paper on implementing the directive last autumn. It is now analysing the responses with a view to drafting regulations and related good practice guidance, on which it will consult later this year.
	We are also tackling religious discrimination through the Human Rights Act 1998. We incorporated the European convention on human rights into UK law on 2 October 2000. We believe that it will help to create a new culture of rights and responsibilities in Britain, including people's rights to hold or manifest their religion or belief. The Act changes the nature of the debate on religious discrimination that must take place in the light of the developing human rights culture.
	As hon. Members know, in the aftermath of 11 September, the Government tried to introduce proposals to extend the law to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence. That was part of our measured response to counter those who exploit the fears that terrorism raises.
	We tried to protect those who risked assault or abuse because of their religious beliefs. The proposals would have expanded the current law on incitement to racial hatred. However, opposition in another place unfortunately meant that the proposals could not be made law. We await with interest the outcome of the deliberations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Lord Avebury's Bill, which covers much of the same ground.
	As my hon. Friend said, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created new religiously aggravated offences. They include assaults, threatening behaviour and criminal damage, and they carry higher maximum penalties when there is evidence of religious hostility in connection with them. We believe that that will play an important part in tackling the problem.
	As my hon. Friend knows, we need to continue to engage, and practical information is important to doing that. The 2001 census therefore included a question about religious affiliation. It will provide important data on Britain's minority faith communities. It is also symbolically important because it acknowledged the importance of faith identity. The responses to the question will help inform the planning and delivery of services that are sensitive to the needs of faith communities. I gather from my hon. Friend's remarks that he is especially concerned about that. As hon. Members know, the results of the census are due in February next year.
	Legislation alone is not enough. We are considering a complex and crucial matter. We cannot achieve everything through law. We need to affect our culture, and that means adopting a comprehensive approach in which education, training and a greater effort to teach more in schools about the diversity of faith will play an important part.

Paul Goodman: Is the Minister aware of the expressed desire of many of my Muslim constituents for either an Islamic school or a girls school in the area, and will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about making it generally easier to establish such schools?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are introducing measures to encourage the establishment of faith schools, which we think are an important means of engaging people in the community. In return for receiving state funding, they undertake to subscribe to the national curriculum and various other provisions. That is an important way in which we can integrate minority faiths into our society and bring both sides together. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituents' desires.
	We need to do more to encourage in young people an understanding of different faiths and the importance of the richness they bring to our society. From September, citizenship will form part of young people's education. For the first time, pupils will be taught as part of the national curriculum about the diversity of identities in the UK, about the importance of the fact that we in this country have plural national identities, and, critically, about the need for mutual respect and understanding.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West referred to the need to engage with faith communities across the spectrum, including in the delivery of public services, which is critical. The Government are reviewing the way in which we interface with the faith communities. We shall ensure improved consultation and participation and the presence of appropriate faith communities at major national events, and we will build on that. In the context of the jubilee there was a remarkable reception for faith communities at Buckingham palace, involving 700 members of the main world faiths from all parts of the United Kingdom. It was the first time that such a gathering had taken place.
	All the main faiths share core values of peace, tolerance and helping others—all essential elements of social cohesion. The participation of faith communities in interfaith dialogue and activity plays a critical role in building and sustaining cohesive communities. We know that the process is not always easy. The disturbances last summer in some northern towns showed that some things can fracture communities and trigger violence. It is vital that attempts by the British National party and others to create divisions along ethnic or religious lines do not succeed, and the obligation to ensure that they do not rests on the Government in particular, and on every member of our society. Such divisiveness is cruelly destructive of the cohesive communities that we all want.
	Faith community leaders at national, regional and local level have a responsibility to show others the way forward by their good example. That is currently an active process in my Swindon constituency. As a Government, we have to play our part by giving leadership, by listening and by responding, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to do that. We recently published a guide for local authorities, "Faith and Community", which we believe will assist in the process.
	My hon. Friend spoke of the need for the media to play their part. That is crucial because people's view of the world is in large part seen through the eyes of the media. Whatever politicians do or say, people are often far more informed by what they see on television or read in their newspaper, so my hon. Friend makes an important point when he says that the governing bodies responsible for the media, both print and broadcast, also have a role to play.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was similarly concerned, and facilitated a meeting following the events of 11 September between Muslim leaders and the Press Complaints Commission and the broadcasting authorities about the portrayal of Muslims in the media. I am sure that the dialogue will continue and I hope that we will see an accurate reflection of our communities in the media.
	Our relations with the Muslim community are extremely important to the Government and we will continue to strive to improve them. We want our Muslim community to find in the Government not only a sympathetic ear but a friend, willing to do all that we can to make Britain a safe and fulfilling place in which to live.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Three o'clock.